Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 21st March.

SHEFFIELD EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at Seven o'clock.

PETITION (BRITISH MUSEUM)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition, which they have annually to submit to this House, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is, necessarily, attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and that the Trust cannot, with benefit to the public, be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament, for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Damaged Respirators

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what should be done with civilian respirators that have obviously deteriorated; and whether he will either call them in for overhaul or advise the public how to dispose of them with the greatest advantage as salvage.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I am advised that the repair of damaged respirators would be uneconomical and the salvage value negligible.

Mr. Dodds: Does my hon. Friend suggest that in the circumstances respirators should be put in the salvage bin or in the dustbin?

Mr. de Freitas: The Question refers to "respirators that have obviously deteriorated." The public should be very careful about throwing away respirators unless they are obviously deteriorating.

Worcestershire

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of Civil Defence personnel required as an immediate target in the county of Worcestershire; the number that have been recruited to the latest convenient date; and whether he will make a statement in regard to progress.

Mr. de Freitas: The peace-time establishment, provisionally estimated at 3,600, is under discussion with the county council. At the end of February, 1,600 had been enrolled. Recruitment in recent months has greatly improved.

Mr. Nabarro: May I invite the attention of the Under-Secretary of State urgently to two points: first the preparation of a reception scheme for rural areas which lie contiguous to industrial belts; second, for the publication of a scheme for industrial premises, so that large numbers of semi-trained Civil Defence personnel, with experience of the last war, can be embodied at once?

Mr. de Freitas: On the first point, we are working on a planned scheme with the Ministry of Health, and a training manual will soon be published covering the welfare side of reception areas. The answer to the second part of the Question is that a statement will be made fairly soon.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In the case of this county, will the target be fixed solely in regard to the needs of the county areas or will it also take into account the possibility of rendering assistance to big urban areas, for example, Birmingham?

Mr. de Freitas: Provisional peace-time estimates take into account the rendering of assistance to urban areas, especially on the welfare and evacuation sides.

Mr. Paton: In the interests of recruiting, would it not be well to avoid having a very considerable number of Civil Defence personnel as "an immediate target," as stated in the Question?

Mr. Nabarro: Would the Minister bear in mind that there are very special problems in these scattered rural areas, which may be called on to receive hundreds of thousands of evacuees from densely built-up industrial areas and, therefore, will have special need for guidance in their reception problems?

Mr. de Freitas: It is perfectly true that they expect to receive hundreds of thousands of evacuees, but in the orderly manner of evacution during the last war. That is what we are planning. We are taking this matter into consideration in our planning with the Ministry of Health.

Eastern Area

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total of Civil Defence personnel aimed at for the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge, respectively; and the numbers enrolled in those counties up to the present time.

Mr. de Freitas: The provisional establishments are 4,000, 3,000, and 1,800, respectively, and the strengths at the end of February were 2,300, 3,500, and 1,400.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the region of which this county forms a part still at the top of the list in recruiting?

Mr. de Freitas: I know that this county is very high indeed, having done well.

In a few days' time I shall know the answer to that question.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the figure for Cambridge include the Isle of Ely?

Mr. de Freitas: Yes, it includes the geographical county of Cambridge.

Industry (Consultations)

Mr. Donald Wade: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions have industrial and commercial organisations met the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff since July, 1950, to consult on matters relating to Civil Defence in industry; and who their representatives were.

Mr. de Freitas: Twice, Sir. The organisations represented were the T.U.C., the Scottish T.U.C., the Federation of British Industries, the British Employers' Confederation, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the National Union of Manufacturers.

Mr. Wade: I am obliged for that information. Is the Minister aware that there is still considerable uncertainty as to whether firms should organise Civil Defence units in their own factories and among their own staff and that this uncertainty partially accounts for the delay in recruiting? Further, is he aware that there is a certain amount of feeling among Z and G reservists that they are being called upon to bear rather more than their fair share of the burden, and that it would help to create a greater sense of justice if it was known—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—that those in industry were being called upon to create a really effective Civil Defence force?

Mr. de Freitas: On the first part of that supplementary question I will make a statement soon. The second part does not arise out of the Question.

Training Courses

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether as a result of the experience which has been gained in the training of Civil Defence Volunteers, he is satisfied with the length of the basic general courses or whether any alterations can be made with a view to speeding up their training.

Mr. de Freitas: The arrangements for basic training are now being examined. It is important that the courses should be as comprehensive as possible, but my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that some of the syllabuses can be shortened. He hopes to issue revised syllabuses soon.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Did the hon. Gentleman see the two letters which appeared in "The Times" on 17th February, in which it was suggested that these courses could profitably be reduced from 32 weeks to 12 weeks by the omission of unnecessary detail? Will he read them if he has not already done so, and take action?

Mr. de Freitas: I have read them, and many other documents also, and they are part of the cause for this decision.

Air Raid Warning (Trial)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to hold an air raid warning siren test in an urban area similar to that held recently in Elstree.

Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir. A technical trial will soon be held in the Marylebone area. The public will be given the fullest notice of the date and time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS

Employment

Mr. John Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent occupants of His Majesty's prisons, excluding Borstal inmates, are permitted to undertake, under guard, agricultural and other outside work of national importance; and what is the policy generally regarding prison labour.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): During 1950, an average of about 680 prisoners detained in His Majesty's prisons in England and Wales, out of a total average population of some 17,500, were employed outside the prison walls under supervision on agriculture, forestry, land drainage and other work: this number does not include those so employed on prison farms and lands. It is impossible for me to deal, within the compass of an answer to a

Parliamentary Question, with the whole subject of prison labour, but I may say that it is the constant endeavour of the Prison Commissioners, with my encouragement and approval, to extend the scope of outside work for prisoners, so long as it is not to the prejudice of free labour. As regards work in prison workshops, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 14th December and 22nd February last.

Mr. Tilney: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the advisability, both for the prisoners and for the country, of making use in areas of full employment of a labour force which is at present a burden on the community, and that 680 is a very small percentage of 17,500?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, but the number of prisoners who can be trusted to be at liberty to this extent is also limited. I endeavour to secure that every possible opportunity shall be given to suitable men of having this chance of showing that they have a sense of trust and honour.

Captain Soames: What charge is made to farmers for prison labour; and how does that charge compare with agricultural wages?

Mr. Ede: A farmer has to pay the Prison Commissioners the recognised standard rates.

Postal Voting

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce a Bill to rectify anomalies in the electoral law and in particular the provision which entitles a prisoner to vote by post if the gaol is in a different area from his residence, but disfranchises him altogether if it is in the same area.

Mr. Ede: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) on 15th February.

Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it was ever the intention of Parliament that prisoners in gaols should be entitled to vote at all? Can anything be more ridiculous than the differentiation mentioned in the Question?

Mr. Ede: I think that the differentiation is, as the hon. Gentleman says, ridiculous, and I hope that an opportunity will present itself of removing it either by removing the facility altogether or making it available generally to prisoners. It is not for me to say what I think the House of Commons thought or what it will do in the future.

Mr. Wade: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter, will he also consider introducing a Bill to rectify anomalies in the electoral system as well as anomalies of the electoral law?

Mr. Ede: I have no doubt that the hon. Member has his chance in the Private Members' Ballot.

Mr. Awbery: Is this not, in addition to the sentence imposed on a prisoner for the crime he has committed, an additional punishment?

Births

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of children born in His Majesty's prisons and Borstal institutions in England and Wales during the past five years; and the average figures of maternal and infant mortality for such births.

Mr. Ede: During the five years ended 31st December, 1950, 232 live births occurred in His Majesty's prisons and Borstal institutions in England and Wales. None of the mothers, but five of the infants, died. There were eight still births.

Prisoners (Statistics)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were undergoing prison sentences on 1st February, 1950, as compared with 1st February, 1938; and how many of them on each date were living two or more in a cell.

Mr. Ede: The total number of prisoners held in prison in England and Wales on 7th February, 1950, which is the nearest convenient date, was 16,465. This figure includes untried and civil prisoners. The corresponding figure for 7th February, 1938, was 9,066. No cell has ever been occupied by two prisoners but on 7th February, 1950, there were 1,968

prisoners accommodated three in a cell: in 1938 it was not necessary that cells should be occupied by more than one prisoner.

Mr. Gammans: Do the Government realise all the alarming implications of this deterioration in our moral standards? Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that within the present capital expenditure budget it will be possible in the near future to erect new prisons or otherwise remedy this alarming state of affairs of three in a cell?

Mr. Ede: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are as much concerned as are all well meaning people in the country at the deterioration of standards which these figures portray. I regret that it is not possible, under the present capital programme, to contemplate the erection of new prisons, but wherever possible, buildings are adapted in order to try to lessen the overcrowding which I have mentioned.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the deterioration in moral standards may not be quite so great as appears on the surface and that some part of the difference in the prison population may be accounted for by the different social standards now prevailing as to what is socially meritorious and what is socially reprehensible?

Mr. Ede: While I admit that standards change, I should not like to say anything which minimised the very serious position that these figures portray.

Mr. David Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 16,000 prisoners rank as unemployed or fully employed?

Mr. Ede: Some of them are fully employed and some of them are partially employed. I doubt if any of them are really unoccupied.

BORSTAL INMATE (ABSENCE)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date Brynley Fussell was known to have escaped from a Borstal institution to France.

Mr. Ede: Fussell was due to report back at the Rochester Borstal Institution


on 21st November last, after a period of home leave. He failed to report, and the Governor received a message on 23rd November that he had that morning been arrested in France.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the fact that this youth has been in a French prison for something like four months; and, if so, what representations is he making through the Foreign Secretary in order that this position may be clarified?

Mr. Ede: The period given by the hon. Gentleman is about right; it is a little over four months, I think. We have made repeated efforts to get this youth extradited. He has consented to return and it is the formalities of the French courts that are preventing this taking place, but I am hopeful that he will be returned within a few days.

Sir Ian Fraser: As this boy will have had four months in prison would it not be a good idea to let him go free when he comes back, and possibly enlist him in the Air Force?

Mr. Ede: When this lad comes back he will have to stand his trial for certain offences which he has committed, not merely those against Borstal discipline, and I should not like to say anything today that would prejudice the fair hearing of the case.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The Question only asks on what date this youth was known to have escaped, and we have got rather far from that.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Miss Bacon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have now taken action on the Memorandum on Juvenile Delinquency, issued jointly by his Department and the Ministry of Education in April, 1949.

Mr. Ede: Eighty-nine local authorities have now held conferences as suggested in the memorandum, and 13 others are expected to do so shortly. Seventy-six of these authorities have set up committees to consider the local situation in

detail and recommend action where suitable. In a number of areas where comparatively few young offenders are to be found, the authorities consider that the existing arrangements are adequate and that no action on the memorandum is required.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (EYE-SIGHT TESTS)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for admission to the Metropolitan Police Force were rejected in the latest convenient 12-month period on account of failing in eye-sight tests.

Mr. Ede: During 1950, 388 male candidates for the Metropolitan Police Force were rejected because of defective vision. The standard required is that of normal vision without glasses, including ability to distinguish the principal colours.

Sir Herbert Williams: Red and blue?

Mr. Marlowe: I recognise that a high standard is necessary, but would it not ease the recruiting situation if some men of a lower standard were accepted for sedentary and office work?

Mr. Ede: I am anxious not to have uniformed men engaged on sedentary and administrative duties. I am trying very hard to recruit non-police personnel for that purpose.

PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE (CLERGYMEN)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will appoint a commission, or committee, to inquire into the present state of the law concerning the disqualification of ministers of religion for membership of this House, and to make recommendations for its reform.

Mr. Ede: No decision has yet been reached about the appropriate method of inquiry into the problem of clerical disqualification.

Mr. Hollis: Can the Home Secretary hold out any hope that he will carry out the specific pledge he gave on 19th October, that an inquiry would be held?

Mr. Ede: I am hoping to be able to do this at no very distant date. We shall deal generally with the question of disqualification, as the Attorney-General informed the House a few days ago.

Professor Savory: Has the Home Secretary's attention been called to the anomaly that whereas clergy of the Scottish Episcopal Church are eligible to sit in the House, clergy of the Church of Ireland are not allowed to do so?

Mr. Ede: I am not sure that the first of these alternatives was correctly stated by the hon. Gentleman. I know of the general anomaly that exists.

Mr. Sorensen: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the anomaly of bishops sitting in another place?

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCITY)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider legislation to embody reciprocal arrangements between this country and other powers in regard to the enforcement of maintenance orders, such as now exists in Commonwealth territories.

Mr. Ede: A draft convention for the recognition and enforcement of maintenance obligations is to be discussed shortly at the Social Commission of the United Nations. The arrangements under the Maintenance Act, 1920, which obtain in the Commonwealth territories depend upon the similarity of the laws in force in these territories, and the question whether these arrangements or any alternative arrangements could be made in respect of other countries having dissimilar laws raises very difficult problems and would need very careful consideration.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the Home Secretary for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that in Germany and other countries large numbers of women are suffering severe hardship through being the unmarried mothers of children by British fathers? In those circumstances, will he sympathetically consider the possibility of making some reciprocal arrangements between this country and some other countries?

Mr. Ede: Reciprocity depends upon the other party being willing to reciprocate, and in matters like this it is sometimes very difficult to arrive at such an arrangement.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not my right hon. Friend at least make inquiries to see if anything can be done along these lines?

Mr. Ede: I said in the early part of my answer that this matter is already being considered at United Nations level.

Mr. Oakshott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people are avoiding the enforcement of maintenance orders by removing themselves to places where reciprocal arrangements do not exist, such as the States of Guernsey? Will he hasten the conclusion of more of these reciprocal arrangements?

Mr. Ede: It would be easier to deal with the States of Guernsey than with some of the countries my hon. Friend has in mind, but, as a member of the Privy Council, I have some responsibilities for the Channel Islands and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they are very anxious to preserve all the rights of asylum which they possess.

MOTOR-CYCLES (SILENCING)

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to ensure that the law relating to the silencing of motor-bicycles is fully enforced.

Mr. Ede: The responsibility for enforcing the regulations governing this matter rests with individual chief officers of police and I am satisfied that within the limits of the available police manpower they do what they can to secure observation of the regulations. I have no power to issue directions to the police on matters of enforcement, but the need to pay particular attention to noisy motorcycles was mentioned at a recent conference of representative chief officers of police and was subsequently brought to the notice of chief constables generally.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intolerable nuisance which is caused, particularly


in areas where there is no speed limit, by some of these motor-cycles—not all —and will he do what he can to ensure that the law is enforced and that silencers are not deliberately removed, as sometimes happens?

Mr. Ede: I share the hon. Member's detestation of noisy motor-cycles. I suffer from them sometimes in the small hours of the morning when the House allows me to be seeking slumber at that time. I am sure that the police are alive to their duties in this matter.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he were on this side of the House and we on that we should have no objection whatsoever to his being absent?

Mr. Ede: But I could not forgo the pleasure of seeing the hon. and gallant Gentleman all the while he is on show.

CARE OF CHILDREN

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children, committed to the care of local authorities, are held in places of detention intended for delinquents; what is the average length of time for which they are so held; and what steps are proposed to correct the position.

Mr. Ede: On 1st March, 1951, 15 children committed to the care of local authorities were accommodated in remand homes with my authorisation given under Section 13 (6) of the Children Act, 1948. The normal length of stay of such children in remand homes is about six weeks. While I deprecate using remand homes for this purpose it is necessary to do so as an exceptional measure at present, but the need will disappear as more reception centres are provided under the Children Act.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Home Secretary aware that this is the cause of a great deal of disquiet among those who are concerned with the welfare of this very small number of children, who may be overlooked just because their numbers are small? Will he bear in mind that in six weeks in this sort of home these children can come to more

harm than they would have come to in the place from which they were removed for care and protection?

Mr. Ede: I am very concerned about this matter. I was concerned about it before I held this Office, when I had to deal with it on occasions as an administrator. I am hoping that the new powers given to local authorities and myself under the Children Act, 1948, will be used to reduce this number still further, but I am afraid that even then there may, in some exceptional cases, be a necessity for one or two children to be temporarily detained in such places.

Earl Winterton: On a point of order. Would it be in order, Sir, to point out that there are 123 Oral Questions on the Order Paper today and that in 25 minutes we have got through only 17 owing to the very lengthy answers?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I always do my best, but it is very hard. If we had fewer supplementary questions we should get on quicker.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that local authorities, who have had the care of children up to the age of 18 committed to them, find themselves in difficulty when such children leave school and secure employment in distant areas, by reason of the refusal of the children's officers of such areas to take any part in the supervision of these children; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. But if my hon. Friend will send me information about any cases he has in mind I will look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Mental Hospital, Darenth Park

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if disciplinary action has been taken or contemplated against those responsible for the conveying of mental patients from Darenth Hospital to and from their outdoor work in open lorries during the whole period of the severe


weather experienced in December, 1950, despite assurances given following complaints in 1949.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Marquand): After inquiring into this matter I do not consider that disciplinary action is called for; but further steps have been taken to ensure that the conveyances shall be properly covered during inclement weather.

Mr. Dodds: While that reply will give some satisfaction, does my right hon. Friend realise that it is incidents of this sort which create concern about what happens inside the walls of the institution? Will the Minister, next winter, arrange that when the weather is very cold there will be early morning outings in open lorries for the officials, so that they will appreciate this point of view?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: asked the Minister of Health what is the number of patients in Darenth Park Mental Hospital; the recognised number for a full complement of staff; and the number of staff at the present time.

Mr. Marquand: The number of patients now resident at Darenth Park Mental Deficiency Institution is 1,791 (1,084 male and 707 female patients). The nursing staff establishment provides for 148 male and 154 female nurses. At present, the male staff is 110 and the female staff 56 full-time and 66 part-time.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In view of the public concern at the recent escapes from this mental hospital, would the Minister take active steps to bring up to strength this very much under-staffed institution, not only to relieve the present overworked staff, but also to provide adequate protection against such escapes in future?

Mr. Marquand: It is true, unfortunately, that mental hospitals all over the country lack staff. We do all we can to encourage nurses to go to such hospitals.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the escape of two patients from Darenth Park Mental Hospital and the subsequent assault on one of the hospital staff; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, but as the case of the patients concerned is now the

subject of criminal proceedings, the hon. Member will understand that I cannot at present make any statement.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Could the right hon. Gentleman at any rate assure the House that instructions may be given to ensure that in future, when staff are sent to bring back escaped patients, the driver is given adequate protection and is not sent in an ordinary private vehicle, in which a driver or male nurse has no protection whatever from the reluctant patients he is bringing back?

Mr. Marquand: I have already said that it would be unwise for me to comment further. I am not quite certain whether what the hon. Member says is a strict account of the facts. We must allow the court to examine this case.

Mr. Dodds: Does my right hon Friend appreciate that this is the same institution where cruelty was caused to patients by taking them out in open lorries?

Drugs (Cost)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Health what was the average annual cost per patient of drugs supplied direct to the patient by chemist under the. National Health Act in 1950, or at the latest known date.

Mr. Marquand: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 15th February.

Specialist Hospitals

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Health in how many cases have general practitioner, cottage type, hospitals been converted to specialist hospitals or for other purposes under the National Health Scheme; and if he will give the list of their names.

Mr. Marquand: According to my present information, nine hospitals—a list of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT—in which general practitioners formerly provided, for their own patients, treatment not of a specialist nature have been converted into specialist hospitals or for other uses. Specialist staff has also been introduced into a number of small general hospitals where general practitioners formerly provided special forms of treatment, but in many of these and


also in some other hospitals some beds have been reserved for patients under the care of general practitioners.

Sir I. Fraser: In cases where the local people have been deprived by specialisation of their local hospital, what alternative arrangements is the right hon. Gentleman making for them?

Mr. Marquand: Nobody has been deprived of a hospital. What is happening in most of these cases is that the local people are now given the advantage of a specialist service over and above what they had before.

Sir I. Fraser: But if they do not require that specialist service, but something else, where do they go?

Dr. Hill: In what portion of the nine cases mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman has a regional hospital board acted contrary to the advice given by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Marquand: The advice which has been given has, I am sure, been carefully considered by all the regional boards when making their plans. They have made them to the best of their ability in the light of local circumstances and on that advice.

Mr. Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend realise how much better off most patients are under the care of a specialist than under the care of a general practitioner?

Following is the list:

Warde Aldam Cottage Hospital, South Elmsale; Mirfield Memorial Hospital; Alfred Bean Hospital, Driffield; Beverley Dispensary and Hospital; Wirksworth Cottage Hospital; Staines Hospital; Stanmore Cottage Hospital; Epping Cottage Hospital; Arundel Hospital.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Health what has been the total cost since its inception of the scheme for the provision of hearing aids for the deaf, including the cost of research, development, establishment and maintenance of clinics, training and payment of staff, distribution, fitting and servicing of aids, and administration; and how many deaf persons are at present effectively using such aids.

Dr. Hill: asked the Minister of Health what is the average cost of the Medresco hearing aid, including components, research, development, distribution, servicing and administration.

Mr. Marquand: In England and Wales 118,699 patients have been supplied with Medresco aids, and evidence derived from a recent survey suggests that about 90 per cent. continue to use them regularly. The services of research development and distribution are so widely spread over various Government agencies that I cannot give any useful figure of total costs.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that if he were to give such an estimate of total cost, it would show that the cost of distributing these aids was just as high as distributing them through normal commercial channels?

Mr. Marquand: A great deal of the distribution is necessarily made in clinics and hospitals. It could not be done in any other way.

Mr. Erroll: The figure of the former Minister was entirely wrong.

Mr. Profumo: Would it involve a significant extra cost if the users of bone conducting aids were provided with free batteries?

Mr. Marquand: That is another question.

Dr. Hill: As the right hon. Gentleman is unable to assess the full cost of the hearing aids, how does he reconcile that statement with the statement of his right hon. Friend the former Minister of Health that the cost was between one-fifth and one-tenth of the cost of commercial aids?

Mr. Marquand: The manufacturing cost is remarkably low. That is generally known.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Health how many Burnley residents are on the waiting list for hearing aids; how many have been supplied since the beginning of the scheme; how many have been supplied within the last six months; and how many have been waiting more than 18 months.

Mr. Marquand: The numbers are 808; 232; 40 and 106 respectively.

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that 3,075 persons are registered at the Cardiff Royal Infirmary as waiting for hearing aids and that only 126 such aids were distributed there in the first three weeks of January, 1951; and whether he will make a statement as to what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. Marquand: The figures given by my hon. Friend are approximately right. The allocation of aids as between the distribution centres is at the moment under review.

Mr. Thomas: Has there been a restriction because of a recent circular by the Treasury, and is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable proportion of the people awaiting hearing aids require them for their work? Can we be given some encouragement that the aids will be forthcoming?

Mr. Marquand: Those who require hearing aids for their work are always given priority. I understand that the present rate of production is approximately the same as last year. If anything, it is slightly better.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Are competitive tenders invited for the manufacture of these hearing aids?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Mr. Enroll: Would the Minister consider a grant-in-aid scheme whereby commercial hearing aids could be made available to remedy the shortage?

Mr. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Health what number of Medresco hearing aids he will send to the Nottingham Hearing Centre in the months of March, April and May.

Mr. Marquand: I hope that deliveries to this Centre will average 240 a month for these three months.

Mr. Redmayne: In that case, how is it that the Ministry sent out a letter on 31st January to say that the position was very much worse and that deliveries would be fewer, that immediately following my Question, early in February, the Nottingham Centre received more than it had had in any month during the whole of the previous year, and that now there is this very pleasing answer from the

Minister that they are to receive many more each month than they received last year? What is the position?

Mr. Marquand: I assure the hon. Member that the position is as I have just stated in answer to his Question. I am very glad that the hon. Member put down his Question and thereby enabled me to look into the position.

Mr. Marlowe: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that these hearing aids cost between only one-fifth and one-tenth of the cost of the commercial article?

Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the benefit of the views of his predecessor, who is prompting him so carefully?

Mr. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the present position with regard to the supply of Medresco hearing aids.

Mr. Marquand: One hundred and fourteen thousand eight hundred patients in England and Wales were supplied with aids up to the end of 1950. I expect that deliveries to distribution centres will continue at a rate of over 6,000 a month during 1951, but some of these will be required as replacements.

Mr. Redmayne: Was the suggestion, made in January, that supplies were to be cut down, an attempt to cut down the costs of this service for this year?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. There has been no attempt of that kind.

Sir H. Williams: Would the Minister supply a few of these hearing aids to his colleagues, so that they may hear what the public are saying about them?

Doctors (Remuneration)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Health what reasons prompted him to adopt the policy set out in Health Circular, E.C.L. 6/51, dated 11th January, 1951, for the purpose in eliminating inflation in doctors' records.

Mr. Marquand: The present inflation makes it impossible accurately to assess the total amount of remuneration due to general practitioners or to distribute this remuneration equitably as between one doctor and another.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Why has the Minister adopted this method? Does he realise that in Hampshire alone 26 lorry loads of documents have to be moved from the food offices to the executive council offices and that neither has enough staff to deal with them? Why could he not have put a simple question in the forthcoming Census which would have given him all the information he needed?

Mr. Marquand: Possibly because the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not make that suggestion in time.

Lieut-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will this circular do anything to eliminate the inflationary records of the Minister of Local Government and Planning?

Emergency Treatment (Charge)

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that anyone suffering a road accident in which a motor vehicle is involved can be charged 12s. 6d. by hospital management committees for emergency treatment;and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Marquand: The liability to meet the charge for emergency treatment under Section 16 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, is upon the person using the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Mr. Fraser: As all people subscribe to the National Health Service today, and anticipate a free service, is it not time this Section of the 1934 Act was repealed?

Mr. Marquand: The National Health Service Act expressly states that this Section should continue in operation.

Thoracic Surgeon, Wolverhampton Hospital

Mr. Baird: asked the Minister of Health when it is expected that a thoracic surgeon will be appointed to the Wolverhampton Royal Hospital.

Mr. Marquand: This hospital has a part-time thoracic surgeon on the staff and no change is contemplated at present.

Capital Works, Midlands Area

Mr. Baird: asked the Minister of Health the cost of capital developments

in the various hospital management committees areas covered by the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board.

Mr. Marquand: As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when considering capital development for the hospital boards in the Midlands area, that there is likely to be a considerable influx of additional industrial workers for the defence programme?

Mr. Marquand: I will take note of that suggestion.

Following is the reply:


BIRMINGHAM REGIONAL HOSPITAL BOARD


Payments on account of Capital Development in Hospital Management Committee Groups for the period from 5th July, 1948 to 3lst January,1951.



Hospital Management Committee
£


1.
Mid-Staffordshire (Mental)
5,372


2.
North Staffordshire (Mental A)
6,732


3.
North Staffordshire(Mental B)
1,620


4.
St. Margaret's
1,776


5.
Birmingham (Mental A)
18,285


6.
Birmingham (Mental B)
61,204


7.
Birmingham (Mental C)
44,657


8.
Birmingham (Mental D)
4,287


9.
Birmingham (Mental E)
16,008


10.
Hereford and District
12,244


11.
South Worcestershire
75,296


12.
Mid-Worcestershire
153,757


13.
Burton-on-Trent
27,045


14.
South Warwick
55,810


15.
Shrewsbury
51,284


16.
Wolverhampton
40,636


17.
Dudley and Stourbridge
37,250


18.
West Bromwich
44,337


19.
Walsall
10,165


20.
Coventry
193,601


21.
Stoke
30,715


22.
Stafford
21,322


23.
Lichfield, Sutton and Tarn worth
10,976


24.
Dudley Road
82,016


25.
(Birmingham) Selly Oak
105,970


26.
Birmingham (Sanatoria)
129,083


27.
Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt (Orthopaedic)
119,834



Miscellaneous
19,811




1,381,093


Note: The cash payments scheduled above cover the value of work paid for between 5th July, 1948 and 31st January, 1951. The expenditure includes the value of works carried out before 5th July, 1948, but paid for after that date and excludes the value of works completed or in progress at 31st January, 1951, for which payment had not been made.

District Nurses (Salaries)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health what revised salary scales for resident district nurses have been agreed; what increases have been authorised; and from what date they are effective.

Mr. Marquand: As there are a number of different grades and scales of salary, I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Whitley Council Circular which contains the figures. The revised scales have effect from 1st February, 1949.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the delay in arriving at a conclusion in this matter has adversely affected the recruiting of this essential branch of the nursing service? Will the new figures overcome that handicap?

Mr. Marquand: I hope they will assist.

Mr. Harrison: Has my right hon. Friend considered the question of retrospective payment in connection with these awards? What is the attitude of the Government in this matter?

Mr. Marquand: I would ask my hon. Friend to look up the circular. There are greatly varying details in regard to each grade.

POPULATION CENSUS

Mr. Turner: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on his arrangements for the forthcoming Census of Population; who are to be employed to carry it out; and the estimated cost.

Mr. Marquand: The forthcoming Census was fully debated in the House on 11th July. All practicable methods of explaining the census to the public are being utilised. The total cost is calculated to be £1,250,000.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL STAFF (UNION MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take, in view of the phraseology and substance of the reply received by him from the Durham County Council to

his letter to them of 17th November, 1950, on the subject of that authority's decision to compel persons engaged in the Health Service in the employ of that authority either to join a trade union or professional association or terminate their employment.

Mr. Marquand: No occasion has arisen calling for action by me and I think this matter had now best be allowed to rest.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the unprecedented snub administered to his Department by this local authority due to his recognition of the fact that the policy which he deprecates in that letter, but which they none the less pursue, is an essential part of Socialist totalitarianism?

Mr. Marquand: My concern is to see that nothing detrimental to the Health Services is done and I am quite satisfied that nothing of that kind is occurring.

Mr. Jennings: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are afraid of this situation and will not stand up to it?

INVESTITURES (EXPENSES)

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: asked the Minister of Health when authority was granted to his Department to defray expenses of recipients of honours and their relatives when attending investitures.

Mr. Marquand: In February, 1941.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that within the last few weeks an unofficial letter signed by one of his Assistant Secretaries and addressed to the clerks of local authorities by name has been sent out. and whether this expense has been authorised for this year?

Mr. Marquand: Because His Majesty has thought fit to arrange some investitures at the Palace which were not held there during the war years.

Mr. Keeling: I understand that this Question was originally put down to the Treasury and was transferred to the Ministry of Health. As it has nothing


whatever to do with the present functions of the Minister of Health, but is based on a circular sent to the clerks of all local authorities, why has it been answered by the Minister of Health and not by the Minister of Local Government and Planning?

Mr. Marquand: I answered the Question which, as far as I know, was put down to me.

Mr. Keeling: No.

Mr. Marquand: As far as I know, it was put down to me. I answered the Question which I saw on the Order Paper. I do, in fact, pay these expenses, where claimed, to persons who have been recommended by my predecessor. I have not yet had time to recommend any myself.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did, in fact, put down the Question to the Treasury and that it was transferred to him? Now that he has been good enough to answer it, will he say on what Vote this expenditure is carried and when it was approved by the House?

Mr. Marquand: Expenditure which I make is carried on the Vote of my Department. I am not responsible for whether a Question is transferred. I merely answer the Questions which are addressed to me.

AGED INFIRM (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the number of infirm aged persons and a certain number of aged persons anxious to secure smaller and more compact accommodation than their present habitation, he will take steps to cause local authorities to authorise their welfare services to erect substantial weather-proof hutments, where other accommodation is not available, in order to accommodate, in particular, the aged infirm now frequently living in circumstances beyond the power of alleviation by welfare officers.

Mr. Marquand: I am ready to consider any proposals which local authorities may submit to me for the provision of residential accommodation for persons in

need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them, but I do not think that, in general, hutments would provide suitable accommodation for this purpose.

Mr. Sorensen: While I agree with that last observation, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he realises that quite a number of infirm aged people who could be transferred would, if they were transferred elsewhere, make available for other people larger accommodation which these aged people do not require? Under these circumstances could the Minister at least confer with local authorities to see what can be done to meet this need?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. This is undoubtedly one of the most serious social problems of our time. We consider it very carefully in the Department and we will be ready to discuss it with local authorities as well.

RULE OF ANTICIPATION

Earl Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the desirability, or otherwise, of altering the Standing Order and Rule of Procedure concerning anticipation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): You yourself, Mr. Speaker, have said that you will give further consideration to the matter to which I presume the noble Lord's Question refers. The point of procedure involved is one which is a matter of custom rather than of Standing Orders, and is one for your discretion, Sir, and as at present advised I do not think that it would be appropriate to appoint a Select Committee to inquire further into it.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole experience of the past has shown that where doubt and difficulty have arisen—I say this without any reflection upon you, Mr. Speaker, or your predecessors—as to whether particular rules or customs of the House can be properly applied when the circumstances have completely changed since that rule or custom was first founded, it is much less embarrassing to everyone concerned to have a Select Committee? What are the objections to a Select Committee?

The Prime Minister: The matter is in the hands of Mr. Speaker, and I would rather leave it there.

Earl Winterton: Is the Prime Minister aware, further, that as things now stand, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, it would be quite possible for anyone to stop any questions on a statement by a Minister by merely giving notice that he was going to raise the matter on the Adjournment and that every supplementary question could be stopped in the same way?

The Prime Minister: The noble Lord knows that in our constitution there are any number of opportunities for people to stop the machine, but that it is not done because of the common sense of hon. Members.

Earl Winterton: It was done the other day.

GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY (RELATIONSHIP)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will give a list of the committees, advisory or executive, that act as a link between industry and the Government.

The Prime Minister: A comprehensive list of all the committees, advisory or executive, which act as a link between industry and the Government would take some time to prepare, and I am satisfied that the effort involved would not be justified. If, however, the hon. Member has in mind any particular aspect of the relations between the Government and industry, I would suggest that he should put down a Question to the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Watkinson: Are we to understand from that reply of the Prime Minister that the Government do not know the exact machinery which exists?

The Prime Minister: We know perfectly well, but it means an immense amount of work and an immense amount of expense to get out these lists, and I should have thought that for the purpose he wanted the hon. Member would have been able to indicate the particular ones he required.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Films

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Lord President of the Council if he intends to have a film of the Festival of Britain made.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Festival Office, in conjunction with the Central Office of Information, are taking steps to ensure that selected events in the Festival are filmed. Some of the preparations for the Festival have already been filmed. Consideration will certainly be given at a later date to the production of a special film using this material, suitably edited, as a record of the Festival.

Mr. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend see that when this film is made it is given the widest possible circulation overseas in order that those persons who may be unable to come to the Festival will be able to see the truth about Britain and not the story told by the party opposite?

Mr. Morrison: I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend is a wise one. Of course, while I cannot require these things, I will do my very best in the direction he has indicated.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to who might play the star part in this film?

Mr. Morrison: One answer is obvious, but the last hon. Member I would think about would be the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend consider including in this film a shot of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) and the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) as evidence of a starving Britain?

Earl Winterton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as one interested in the film industry, if included in this film will be a picture of a British family eating their weekly meat ration?

Exhibitions (Opening)

Mr. I. J. Pitman: asked the Lord President of the Council (1) whether, in view of the anxiety felt by the contractors at the progress made and of the


short time remaining, he is satisfied that in general the contracts for display treatment for the various static and travelling exhibitions of the Festival of Britain were placed in time to allow economical and efficient completion and that the displays will be completed in time for the date specified in the standard contract;
(2) to what extent he expects that the display treatment for the various exhibitions of the Festival of Britain will be complete as originally planned in time for the official opening; and what further degree of completion he expects by what dates.

Mr. H. Morrison: As I informed the House on 21st February in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), I am confident that, barring further accidents, the South Bank Exhibition will open according to plan, and the same applies to the Exhibitions of Science and Industrial Power, and the land and seaborne travelling exhibitions. It was always intended that building operations should continue during the Exhibition of Live Architecture at Lansbury, and there is no change in this situation.
These exhibitions will all open on the announced dates, even if certain features should be incomplete, but it is still hoped and expected that, given continued satisfactory co-operation and effort by all concerned, the shows will be complete by the due dates.

Mr. Pitman: The Lord President has mentioned buildings, but my Questions deal with displays within the buildings; will he give an answer on that rather than on buildings?

Mr. Morrison: The answer is the same, we shall open, but it may be that not everything will be entirely finished

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Apples (Storage)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the dietetic value of fresh fruit and the need to conserve foreign currency, he will give consideration to a scheme for the collective preservation through the winter of the many tons of excellent eating apples produced in this country which are now allowed to rot.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Fruit storage capacity owned by growers and associations of growers is now about 130 per cent. greater than it was before the war and is still increasing, with every encouragement from my Department. I am not aware of any appreciable wastage of first quality dessert apples, but I shall be happy to consider any specific proposals or information which my hon. Friend may care to send me.

Mr. Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend also give consideration to the possibility of amateur fruit growers participating in this scheme?

Mr. Williams: Should any such cold store be capable of being used by an amateur fruit grower I would be delighted to give support to it.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: While I was unable to hear the last reply of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is aware that if he adequately protected the market from the import of foreign applies it would be profitable to the growers to market surplus apples which are now allowed to rot?

Mr. Williams: I do not at all accept the implications in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Baldwin: While agreeing with the Minister that there was no appreciable loss of dessert apples, may I ask if he is aware that those growers enterprising enough to store both dessert and cooking apples were adversely affected by the free open licence on 1st January, and that they will be further discouraged from storing apples next season unless more consideration is given to the date when an open licence is operative?

Mr. Williams: That is not the case. All good quality British apples are now fetching practically double the price of imported apples.

Tied Cottages, Kent

Mr. Percy Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many certificates have been granted to farmers by the Kent Agricultural Executive Committee since 1945 respecting tied cottages of which they sought possession.

Mr. T. Williams: The cottage certificate procedure does not apply to tied cottages in respect of which no contract of tenancy exists. During the five years 1946–50 the Kent Agricultural Executive Committee considered 533 applications and issued 266 certificates to farmers in connection with proposed applications under the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, for court orders for the possession of cottages required for their employees.

Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farm workers feel that these certificates are far too easily granted by county committees, on which they are inadequately represented?

Mr. Williams: I have heard that allegation, but I am satisfied that the certificate procedure, which reserved approximately 50 per cent. of those cases where application was made, has worked out to the benefit of the agricultural worker.

Mr. John Rodgers: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Minister of Local Government and Planning to the need for more houses for agricultural workers?

Land Drainage Act (Rates)

Mr. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the unfair incidence of rates levied under the Land Drainage Act, 1930; and if he will introduce new legislation.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member does not say in what respect he considers that the rates levied under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, fall unfairly. The report of a Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee on land drainage legislation will be published within the next two months; and the question of new legislation will fall to be considered in the light of the recommendations in that report.

Mr. Redmayne: Is it the view of the Minister that the report is likely to recommend the broadening of the basis of contribution, because that would cover the point to which I referred as being unfair?

Mr. Williams: I think we had better wait until the report is published.

Sugar Beet Pulp (Price)

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture on what grounds he has decided to increase the price of sugar beet pulp by £2 a ton; whether he consulted the growers' association; and whether he is aware that the decision was announced after the majority of contracts for the year's pulp had been signed.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the concern which is being caused by the decision to increase the price of sugar beet pulp by £2 a ton, especially in view of the fact that this decision was not made known until after a large number of contracts for the year's pulp had been signed; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the position.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), on 1st March. The growers' representatives were consulted, and I was also aware that the majority of the contracts for growing this year's beet crop had been signed. Although these give the growers the option of buying pulp at prices to be announced by the British Sugar Corporation before 16th September, 1951, no contracts for the purchase of the pulp itself have yet been signed.

Colonel Ropner: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the growers were consulted, does he mean that there were official consultations with representatives of the growers' association?

Mr. Williams: There was official consultation with the National Farmers' Union, who were themselves anxious that we should make an announcement of the forthcoming increase in price.

Fruit and Vegetables (Marketing)

Mr. William Paling: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has considered introducing a marketing scheme for home-produced fruit and vegetables by which more equitable prices would be available to growers and consumers alike.

Mr. T. Williams: If my hon. Friend has in mind a scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, such a scheme can only be introduced by producers.


whose representatives have, I understand, been considering the subject seriously for some time.

Mr. Paling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the first instance this Question was put down to the Minister of Food, as I knew that certain Ministers had been in consultation with the growers on this particular matter, and that my Question was then transferred to his Department? Is he further aware that at the present time prices for fruit and vegetables are fabulously high and the consumer is having to pay prices very much in excess of what he should pay? Will the Minister do something about this in conjunction with his colleagues?

Mr. Williams: The initiative of a marketing scheme will have to come from the producers themselves. If the producers feel disposed to prepare a marketing scheme for fruit and vegetables we should be happy to look at it.

Mr. Paling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a question for producers and consumers, and that consumers are very disturbed about the whole position? Will he look at it from their point of view rather than that of the producers, if the producers are not willing to come forward with a marketing scheme?

Mr. Williams: Only the producers have statutory power to submit a marketing scheme to my Department.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price given to the primary producer and the price paid by the consumer is so vastly different that it is causing a great amount of unpleasantness and disgust among the people? Will he take steps to eliminate the difference in price between the producer and the consumer?

Mr. Deedes: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to his hon. Friends that there is no subsidy and no guaranteed price for these commodities and that that is why the price seems higher in relation to other commodities?

Mr. Paling: With reference to the last interjection, is my right hon. Friend aware that English apples were on sale last week at a shop near here at 2s. 6d. per lb. when the producers were receiving only 5d. a lb.?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Will the Lord President of the Council tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 12TH MARCH—Supply (7th Allotted Day).

It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Navy Estimates, 1951–52, and to consider Votes A, 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13 and 15 in Committee.

TUESDAY, 13TH MARCH—Supply (8th Allotted Day).

Report stage of the Civil Vote on Account, which will be taken formally.

Debate on the Gambia Egg Scheme until 7 p.m. and afterwards a debate on the policy of the Durham County Council towards its employees and union membership. These debates will arise on Motions to be tabled by the Opposition.

WEDNESDAY, 14TH MARCH—Supply (9th Allotted Day).

Committee stage of Civil Supplementary Estimates beginning with Class IX., Vote 1, Ministry of Supply; Class VI., Vote 1, Board of Trade; Class IX., Vote 3, Ministry of Food.

At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates and Supplementary Estimates required before the end of the financial year.

THURSDAY, 15TH MARCH—Supply (10th Allotted Day).

Report stage of Civil Supplementary Estimates beginning with Class VI, Vote 9, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services); and Vote 21, Department of Agriculture for Scotland (Food Production Services); Class II, Vote 2, Foreign Office Grants and Services.

Report stage of Army, Navy and Air Estimates, 1951–52.

At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates and Supplementary Estimates required before the end of the financial year.

Consideration of Double Taxation Orders.

FRIDAY, 16TH MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

It may be convenient for me to inform the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 10th April. Also that it is proposed to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 22nd March, and meet again on Tuesday, 3rd April.

Mr. Eden: As regards Monday's business, I understand that the Government would prefer not to deal with the question of the Supreme Commander on that day but that they may at a later date have some information to give us on which we can have a discussion. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we did put off this debate previously at the request of the Government, and I should like to know if the Government can tell us, supposing that we do not discuss it on Monday, when they think that a discussion will be possible from their angle, apart from anything we may want to do?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and for the cooperation of the Opposition in adjusting the day on which that subject would otherwise have been debated, namely today. I had hoped that we would, given a little more time, see a bigger picture of the various Commands under the Atlantic Treaty, but that has not taken place. The procedure is inevitably a little lengthy and, therefore, we are not ready. I think that the House could debate the matter more advantageously if it had a more complete picture. We would propose at a later date to publish a White Paper giving, I would hope, a fullish picture of the whole set-up, and the House could then debate it. The House will appreciate that it has to go to the Standing Group and the Defence Committee and the Governments that are concerned, so I do not think that it can be done this side of Easter. But I would assure the right hon. Gentleman that I should like it to be as soon as possible.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will accept that we have done our best to meet the Government on this difficulty, but I really cannot give an undertaking that we shall not raise the matter before Easter; the delay is really rather too long. So today all that we can say is that we will consider what the right hon.

Gentleman has said, and perhaps further pursue the matter through the usual channels. But I do not want any misunderstanding. I cannot give any undertaking that we can possibly leave this matter over until after Easter.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I quite understand. He will accept that I am not trying to evade the issue or the House at all. I only wish the House to have as full a picture as possible of the mechanism in these matters. I do not think that it can be through before Easter but I cannot have any grievance if the Opposition want to debate it on Monday.

Mr. Eden: Is this an awful warning of what will happen in operational practice?

Mr. Morrison: Not at all. Heaven forbid that it should.

Mr. Churchill: We think it a very good suggestion that a White Paper should be published. I hope that it might be published at least the night before the debate so that we should have a chance of reading it. There would be no objection to that, would there?

Mr. Morrison: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman means before such a debate takes place.

Mr. Churchill: Yes.

Mr. Morrison: Of course if it takes place on Monday we cannot have a White Paper, but if we could agree about a further debate then the House certainly ought to have a White Paper before that debate takes place, even if only the night before.

Mr. Churchill: I understood that the Government have no further statement to make to us on this subject before Monday's debate, though if there was a White Paper Monday would naturally not be the date when that would be discussed. Certainly we would be ready to wait until the Government had their proposals completed but we would not agree to an indefinite putting off the matter until after Easter. I hope that when it is settled we shall have a White Paper, if possible, at least 24 hours before the debate takes place, as these matters require careful study.

Mr. Morrison: Yes. The position of the right hon. Gentleman is quite reasonable and we shall do our very best in that direction. We want to get the fullest picture possible as soon as we can. It is a question of what is possible. However, I do not dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend give any promise of time for a debate on the appointment of an American cox to the Oxford boat crew?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the fact that the business announced for next week does not include the Committee stage of the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Bill, the Second Reading of which was taken on 21st February, indicate that the Government no longer regard it as an urgent Measure?

Mr. Morrison: I am very sorry that we have not been able to get that Bill through as quickly as we should, but I cannot be held responsible for that. The discussion in the House must be responsible.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Can my right hon. Friend see any prospects of a debate on civil aviation at a fairly early date? We have not had one for some time.

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid not, unless it happens to come up some time on a Supply Day.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: During the debate on Class Z reservists the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour read out a very long and complicated statement about reserved occupations. Would it be possible to have time to debate that before the Easter Recess?

Mr. Morrison: As I understand it, when the Bill was in Committee my hon. Friend, with the authority of the Minister of Labour, obtained permission to make such a statement on Third Reading, and he made it, and the Bill was open to debate. I cannot see that any further debate on it is necessary.

Professor Savory: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to lay before the House the Indemnity Bill for the former hon. Member for West Belfast?

Mr. Morrison: Quite shortly, Sir. I hope the hon. Gentleman put the question in a friendly spirit, in which case we

can leave it there—otherwise I could say something else. But it will be quite soon.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: On this question of the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, I think you, Mr. Speaker, ruled at the time that it was not debatable in that debate on Third Reading of the Bill. It was read at great speed and we could hardly hear what was being said. We have read it since, and it is really very important that we should get a chance to discuss it.

Mr. Morrison: Either it could be raised on the Adjournment some time—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh!"]—or it could be raised on Supply. But I do not think it would be reasonable, in the existing circumstances, to expect the Government to give special time for it.

STANDING COMMITTEES (COMPOSITION)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I rise to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you previous notice. It concerns the appointment and composition of Standing Committees of the House. Since the beginning of this Parliament, and until this morning, all Standing Committees have consisted of 50 members; made up of 25 Government supporters and 25 members of other parties, including one Liberal. This morning's Votes and Proceedings disclose that Standing Committee B now consists of 45 Members, and also shows that the Government, for the first time in this Parliament, is given a majority of one over all other parties in the Committee.

Mr. Manuel: Why not?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This alteration in the composition of the Committee takes place shortly before the Transport (Amendment) Bill is due to come before Standing Committee B for its Committee stage. I wish to ask whether it is with your approval, Mr. Speaker, that this alteration has been made and whether you have given any Ruling of a general character to the Committee Selection as to the principles which should guide them in deciding upon the size and composition of Standing Committees in the future?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. The other day this matter was brought to my notice—I had never heard of it before. Then, of course,


I looked to see what the Standing Orders were, and I said that we must comply with Standing Orders. Standing Orders say:
Each of the said standing committees…shall consist of twenty members, to be nominated by the committee of selection, who in nominating such members shall have regard to the composition of the House.
It has always been the custom of this House that parties should be represented on Standing Committees as a reflection of the number of Members on the Floor of the House, and when that was brought to my attention I had no option but to rule that that must take place. There had been a mistake in the past which has nothing to do with me. The fact that there have been 50 members before, has nothing to do with me. I rule for the present, and I could make no other Ruling.
There is one other slight error which I have discovered, and which I am afraid does not help the hon. Member in his contention. It is that hitherto the core of each of these Committees has been 20, and they have been 10 Opposition and 10 Government. Strictly speaking, and following the proportion in the House, there should have been a majority for the Government. That would have meant nine on one side and II on the other, which is a difference of two and not one.

Mr. Churchill: This is of course a most important change that you have made— [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a change."] May I ask what was the authority and the basis on which we have worked since this Parliament stood? What was the authority on which it stood?

Mr. Speaker: The Standing Orders of the House of Commons, because the Committee of Selection is nominated by the House of Commons.

Mr. Churchill: Did not it stand on your authority?

Mr. Speaker: They came to me for a Ruling and I gave a Ruling on what was the custom of Parliament.

Mr. Churchill: If your Ruling alters the arrangements which existed since this Parliament began, was not that Ruling a new step on your part?

Mr. Speaker: I think not. They came to me, and I pointed out to them that they had been in error and had not been complying with Standing Orders. I said that in future we must comply with Standing Orders.

Mr. Churchill: In what way, Sir, has there been an abuse of Standing Orders, an avoidance of Standing Orders? In what way has there been that since the House met; and why should this matter suddenly be altered when you had not come in and given any Ruling in the first instance, and you come in and give a special Ruling now without our having any opportunity—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has no business at all to say anything about my coming in. Two hon. Members came to me and asked me to intervene. I did not want to come in at all. If they had not asked me, I should not have had to give a Ruling. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to talk about my coming in.

Mr. Churchill: May I, Sir, with very great respect, ask who asked you to give this new Ruling?

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of the Committee of Selection and the Deputy-Chairman, one on each side. One of each party came to me.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not clear that up till this morning the Committee of Selection has been over-generous to the Opposition and that this is merely putting the matter right?

Sir Herbert Williams: As the proportionality of Members is—[Interruption]—as the proportion of hon. Members is—[Interruption]——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member with all this noise going on.

Sir H. Williams: As the proportion of hon. Members is really 1 per cent. at the moment, is not the proper interpretation of your Ruling, Sir, that the extra Member should be one brought here in a pram?

Lord John Hope: If the procedure hitherto in this Parliament has in fact been wrong, which I understand is what the position now is, are not all the proceedings under that procedure void?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. The Committee sat and no objection was taken to the Committee; tout an objection has been taken now and I had to give a Ruling.

Earl Winterton: On that point, Mr. Speaker, you have distinctly used the phrase—[Laughter.]—this is not a laughing matter I would assure hon. Members. As you have distinctly used the phrase that there has been a breach of Standing Orders, may I respectfully ask you what you, in your position propose to do about dealing with those guilty of this breach?

Mr. Speaker: I think that is a matter for the House and not for me.

Mr. Keeling: You said just now, Mr. Speaker, that the core of each Standing Committee up till now has been 10 members representing the Government party, and 10 representing the Opposition parties; and that in future it would be 11 and 9, respectively. Is it not a fact, Sir, that the united strength of the Opposition parties is much nearer to ten-twentieths than nine-twentieths?

Mr. Speaker: If that is so, that can be adjusted. After all, Members are added to Committees, and that can be adjusted during the addition of Members.

Mr. Churchill: With very great respect to you, Sir, and fully recognising all the difficulties with which you have to contend, is it not a very serious thing to change the fundamental basis on which our Standing Committees have been conducted for more than a year in the present Parliament, and to change it at one stroke without the House being apprised of the issues involved in any way or being given any opportunity of expressing an opinion? May I ask whether the only step necessary to bring about this change and procure a new Ruling from you was that the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the Committee made a representation to you? Was that the only basis? Is that so, Sir? Did they both make the representation to you?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot see who else should come to me. If the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman ask me for my advice, surely I am entitled to give it. That is all I can add.

Mr. Churchill: With great respect, Sir. This is not a question of advice, but of a Ruling. The entire basis of our discus-

sions in Standing Committees has now been changed—changed by altering one figure to the advantage of the Government. That is a very formidable and serious step to have taken. It is an event to which I have not seen a parallel in 50 years' Parliamentary experience.

Mr. Speaker: After all, we have our Standing Orders. However keen party feeling may be, I have to obey the Standing Orders.

Mr. Mathers: It may reduce the temperature a little if I, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, were to recount how this difficulty arose. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I thought of making a short statement to the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Surely, the House should have the courtesy to listen to the Chairman of this Committee.

Mr. Mathers: Mr. Mathers rose——

Earl Winterton: Presumably, if we are to hear the Chairman's version we shall also hear the Deputy-Chairman's version.

Mr. Speaker: I am quite prepared.

Mr. John Cooper: On a point of order. As this is a question of the interpretation of the Standing Orders of the House, is it not purposeless to discuss it after you, Mr. Speaker, have given a Ruling?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mathers.

Mr. Mathers: The general practice of the Committee of Selection has been to set up Committees of 50—a nucleus of 20, with 30 Members added. That has been the general practice, but during the time I have been Chairman this has been by no means an absolute rule. We have made up Committees of varying numbers from time to time, endeavouring to suit what we considered to be the convenience of the House and of the Members who would serve on those Committees. The working out of the percentage of Members in accordance with the party strength in the Chamber has guided us in setting up those Committees. In setting up a Committee of 50, the rough calculation—without going into the question of percentages and fractions of percentages—provided for 25 Government supporters. 24 Conservatives and one Liberal.
The reason for the change that has taken place is that, having set up a Committee with that strength, which considered the Sea Fish Industry Bill, there was a reverse in that Committee. [HON, MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Chairman of that Committee had to give a casting vote. Thereupon, Members serving on that Committee approached me. I was not approached officially, but Members on the Committee approached me and said they thought that there should be a Government majority on all Committees. I replied that that was the intention of the rules governing the appointment of Committees, but that the Bills which had been sent upstairs did not seem to be controversial, and, therefore, the Committee of Selection had given the fullest number of Members that it was possible to put on a Committee.
When the mistake was pointed out— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When the difficulty was pointed out, I said that I would have the matter looked at. At the next meeting of the Committee of Selection I raised the point, having asked that the actual percentages of the membership of the Committees should be worked out to several decimal points. It was on that basis that we found that it was possible to make the change, which gives a majority of one to the Government on a Committee of 45 Members. However, we have not yet discovered how to make a change on the basis of a Committee where only 20 Members are involved.
That is the explanation of the whole matter. The Committee of Selection decided that we should ask for a Ruling from those who, perhaps, were more competent than ourselves to decide the matter. As a result of that, we have had your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I understood that it had been loyally accepted by those who represent the Opposition on the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Touche: As the leading Conservative Member on the Committee of Selection, perhaps I might say a few words. Ever since the beginning of this Parliament, we have had Standing Committees consisting of 50 Members. The proportion has been 25 on each side—25 Government supporters, 24 Conservatives and one Liberal. During the whole of the sittings of the Committee of Selection there has never been any dispute by us

that that was the right number and the right proportion.

Mr. Manuel: No wonder.

Mr. Touche: There has never been any dispute until the defeat of the Government on the Sea Fish Industry Bill by two votes due, as a matter of fact, to the absence of two Government supporters. When the matter was raised in the Committee of Selection, I naturally objected to this change being made, and my colleagues agreed with me. We then agreed to go to Mr. Speaker for arbitration.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Now that we have heard the explanation of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection as to the underlying reasons which lay behind this change, and which throw an entirely fresh light upon this matter, all I wish to say is that this change——

Mr. Carmichael: I want to raise a point of order.

Mr. Thomeycroft: I am on a point of order myself. [Interruption.]I have been called by Mr. Speaker, and I take my instructions from Mr. Speaker, and not from the Minister of Labour.
Further to that point of order, since this change so favourable to the Government, because it comes at a moment when the Transport (Amendment) Bill——

Mr. Carmichael: I want to raise a point of order. The hon. Gentleman opposite is making a statement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will please resume his seat. He may be called to make his point later.

Mr. Carmichael: It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to make a statement.

Mr. Thomeycroft: This change comes at a moment when the Transport (Amendment) Bill is about to enter upon its Committee stage and at a time when many of the Government supporters have threatened to wreck it during the Committee stage. [Interruption.]I feel that the most courteous and orderly course which I can now take is to give notice that I propose to table a substantive Motion criticising the decision and challenging the action which has been taken.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that ought to stop all further debate. I do not think we can debate that further until we see the Motion that is to be tabled.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Sydney Silverman: With your leave, Mr, Speaker, I desire to raise a matter of complaint which, subject to your Ruling, the House may have to deal with as a question of Privilege.
The matter arises in this way, and I think that, perhaps, I can put the House in possession of the facts best by reading two short extracts from a letter which I have received. The letter comes from the Crockham Hill Vicarage, Edenbridge, Kent, from the Rev. O. Fielding Clarke, Master of Arts, Bachelor of Divinity, and, without troubling the House with the whole of the letter, I shall read two very short extracts. The first is this:
A letter of mine"—
says Mr. Clarke—
to my own Member of Parliament, protesting against German re-armament, was sent on, without my being asked, to my Bishop, who wrote me an impossible letter, saying that he thought I should resign.
The other extract, which I would like to read, is this one, and it is equally short:
The way is open for endless victimisation of people who write to their Members of Parliament if this is not tackled firmly.
In considering whether or not these facts disclose a prima facie case of privilege, I would direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this extract to be found at page 109 of the 15th Edition of Erskine May, which says:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt, even though there is no precedent of the offence.
I must confess at once that I can find no precedent of an offence of this kind, but, nevertheless, I submit to you, Sir, for your consideration, that it comes within the general principle therein stated by Erskine May, because it tends to lower the authority of the House and to bring it into contempt in undermining, or tending to undermine, the confidence between constituents and their Members, upon

which the authority of the House must ultimately rest and because, on the other hand, Members of Parliament could not possibly discharge their duties to the House or to their constituents unless they were kept constantly in touch with people's opinions and people's feelings and people's grievances, and constituents would not, of course, write to their Members with the freedom and security which they ought to feel if Members were to treat their letters in the way this Member treated this letter. I therefore ask for your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will please bring the extracts from the letter to the Table.

Letter delivered in.

The CLERK (Sir FREDERIC METCALFE) read the passages complained of.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that no precedent exists for this complaint, but I cannot say that there is no prima facie case of Privilege. As there is no precedent, I must leave the matter as it is now to the House to decide. I wonder if the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Rodgers) would like to say anything about it, as he is entitled to do?

Mr. John Rodgers: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, first, that I was given no prior notice that this question was going to be raised.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Silverman: I hope that hon. Members opposite, and the hon. Member himself, will acquit me of that at once. I did everything in my power to give the hon. Member notice, and I must tell the House exactly what I did, so that the House may judge whether I acted fairly or not. I had to do the thing quickly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Matters of Privilege have to be raised at once. I sought advice upon the subject, and, having obtained that advice, I wrote a letter to the hon. Member yesterday afternoon, which I marked "Private" and "Urgent," and handed it in the ordinary way to a Messenger of the House of Commons. I could not give more notice, and I shall say exactly why. I shall tell the House what happened, because I was under directions to raise the matter today, and, therefore——

Hon. Members: Whose directions?

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Speaker's directions.

Mr. Eden: I only want to get this matter clear. [Interruption.]The hon. Gentleman has given way to me so that I may put my question. If the hon. Gentleman had been in communication with Mr. Speaker, why could he not get in communication with the hon. Member himself?

Mr. Silverman: I think that I acted in a way that any other hon. Member of the House would have done, and I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman who has asked me the question would, in the same case, have acted in the same way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—because, under the Rules of Procedure of the House, there is no other way in which one can act. The overriding consideration is to act at once. The most frequent ground on which a case of Privilege is ruled out of order is that the matter has not been raised immediately. As soon, therefore, as I had this information, I took what I hope are the proper steps to find out what was the proper course to take. After seeking advice, I was told that the proper thing to do was to raise the matter after Questions today, and, in the meantime, to give the hon. Member concerned notice of it. I therefore submit to the House very respectfully that I did everything that anyone could be expected to do.

Hon. Members: No

Mr. Rodgers: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House since two o'clock today and have been sitting opposite the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for an hour and a half, and he has made no attempt to communicate with me. Secondly, he might have inquired from the postal authorities of the House where my mail was sent so that he could ensure that I received the letter.

Mr. H. Hynd: Did you give the clergyman notice?

Mr. Rodgers: The House will realise that I am caught in a very difficult situation. The action I took——

Mr. Hopkin Morris: On a point of order. Since the hon. Member

for Sevenoaks (Mr. Rodgers) has had no notice, and since the matter has now been put in the possession of the House and in your possession, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this discussion should be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: There is no actual discussion at the moment. What I mean by that is that, later on, the House can say what it wishes, but a Motion has got to be moved. I was merely asking the hon. Member, who is entitled to say something as his conduct is challenged, whether he wished to give an explanation, and I think we ought to hear it.

Mr. Eden: On a point of order. Surely, there are matters here which affect all Private Members. I am not blaming anybody because the communication did not arrive, but on a matter of such a personal character as this, surely, Sir, now that you are satisfied that the hon. Gentleman did not even know that the matter was going to be raised—[Interruption.]He did not know.

Mr. Snow: Has he got the letter?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman had received no intimation until the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) got up. Am I not right?

Mr. Rodgers: Mr. Rodgers rose——

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Further to that point of order. It is undoubtedly the case that if a complaint of breach of Privilege arises, the complaint must be made at the next sitting of the House. There is an implication that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) did not do his duty. If I may say so, that is a grossly partisan and unworthy suggestion. My submission to you, Sir, is that my hon. Friend took the usual course, wrote a note to the hon. Member and left it with the messenger, and the messenger, no doubt, has either delivered it, or the hon. Member will collect it. If this matter is now adjourned it would be an implication, as, indeed, has been made, that my hon. Friend did not follow the usual practice. Moreover, I submit that the action which the House takes does not depend entirely on what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Rodgers) says. It depends, surely, on the contents of this letter?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the House quite understands the business at the moment. The position is that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has raised a matter of Privilege. He has brought it to the Table and I have said that I cannot say there is no prima facie case, and have left it to the House. Then, in courtesy, I asked the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Rodgers) if he had anything to say. He merely said that he had not had notice, and I do not know whether he wants to say anything more. But, at the moment, there is nothing before the House in the form of a Motion. The matter cannot be adjourned because we have no Motion to adjourn. Eventually, when the hon. Member has had his say-to which he is quite entitled—then, naturally, he withdraws. We then have the Motion before us and we decide and do what we like.

Mr. Rodgers: I merely want to reiterate what I said earlier, that no communication has yet been received by me in this matter and that I prefer to reserve any other statement.

Mr. Speaker: It is customary for the hon. Member when these matters are brought before the House to withdraw. That is the normal custom.

Mr. Eden: As there is so much hubbub, we should very much like you to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. We cannot believe our ears.

Mr. Speaker: It is the ordinary custom. When an hon. Member's conduct is criticised, the ordinary custom is that he withdraws from the House. It is not a reflection of any kind on the hon. Member, but it may be that somebody in debate might make personal attacks and might go out of order. It always has been the custom, and we have always enforced it.

Mr. Eden: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, is there any precedent for placing a Member of this House in that position without his ever having received the communication on which he is indicted? I would say, with all respect, that has never happened since the days of Charles I.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: I suppose hon. Members would like to hear me, but I do

not seem to be able to make myself heard. I was going to say that we are all getting rather heated. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. I think it has happened before. But, in any case, if he thinks that, a Motion has now, I presume, to be put before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman can move "That the debate be now adjourned," when he will have his opportunity. There is nothing I can do at the moment, because there is no Motion before the House.

Mr. Silverman: I understand that, as the complainant, it is my duty under your Ruling, Sir, to move a Motion for the consideration of the House. I proceed, therefore, to do so, but may I give for one minute only, because I do not want to detain the House, my reason for the Motion I propose to move? First of all, I would like to say to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, that I profoundly regret that he has not received the notice I sent him. I really must ask him to acquit me of any responsibility. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member quite rightly, and quite fairly, says that I have been sitting opposite to him for an hour and a half and that I could easily have told him. I think that was a perfectly fair point to make, and I am not complaining. But my reply to it is that until he was on his feet, I had no reason whatever to suppose that the letter I handed in yesterday, which I marked "urgent" and expressly asked should be delivered as quickly as possible, had not, in fact, been delivered to him. How could I possibly know that? I submit to the House that it was not an unnatural thing to suppose that the quickest way of reaching a Member of this House was not by post and not by telephone, but to suppose that, some time between yesterday afternoon and this afternoon, the hon. Member would receive a letter handed in for him here.
I was not asking the House to form any judgment upon this matter at all, and I am bound to say at once that I have not formed any judgment myself. I do not know whether the facts indicated in this letter are true or not. I do not know whether the hon. Member admits them or denies them and I am not complaining that he stands on his defence that he has had no letter. What I say is that on a prima facie case this is a


matter best considered not in a heated or feverish or hasty way in the House of Commons in this way, but that it should be submitted to the Committee of Privileges for consideration by them and that the House may then consider their report. The House will, I am sure, especially in relation to one of its own Members, not wish to prejudge any of the issues involved at this stage, or any issues that might be involved at any stage.
I am saying, however, that if it were true—and I am not saying it is true— that these things happened they must necessarily reflect upon the authority of the House. It is quite true that a Bishop has no authority to cause a clergyman to resign, but the principle involved of receiving a letter from a constituent and then, without notice to the constituent at all of what one is doing, sending it to a man who might be the employer of the constituent, is to produce a situation——

Earl Winterton: If I may say so, I do not dissent from much that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said about this matter being referred to the Committee of Privileges. But I wish to point out, with the greatest respect, that it places the members of the Committee of Privileges in the greatest difficulty if the hon. Gentleman proceeds to argue the merits. Surely all he is entitled to do is to claim that there is a prima facie case.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the noble Lord. There is a lot in what he has said. We do not want to argue the conduct of the Bishop. If the House chooses, it can refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges to make an impartial decision.

Mr. Churchill: Do I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that you would be glad if the Motion to refer this matter to a Committee of Privileges could be adjourned?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: No, I said it was a matter for the House and that once a Motion was before the House, it was a matter for the House.

Mr. Churchill: I am very glad indeed to receive your Ruling. It is a matter for the House to decide, no doubt after

debate and if necessary after a Division, whether this matter should be proceeded with immediately or not.

Mr. S. Silverman: I have not moved it.

Mr. Churchill: I am only endeavouring to ascertain what the Rule is on the matter. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne moved a Motion it would be open to anyone else to move that the debate should be adjourned in order that the House may decide.

Mr. Speaker: Once the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has moved a Motion it is open for the House to debate it or to move that it be adjourned or to do anything the House likes.

Mr. Silverman: I have not moved it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Move it."] I was not seeking to discuss the merits at all, but only seeking to explain why in my opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Move it."] I beg to move, "That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges."

Mr. Paton: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Paget: Is it not now the custom for the hon. Gentleman who is the subject of the complaint to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: If he does not choose, I think perhaps there will be another Motion.

Mr. Churchill: I wish to follow the line you have indicated, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."
It seems to me that it will be in harmony with our general way of dealing with these matters. The Motion to adjourn the debate, is a matter which can be debated upon and divided on by the House. It seems to me that in all the circumstances it would be very sudden to remit this matter to the Committee of Privileges and to order the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers) to withdraw, when he has not been given any of the customary notice. I think that is not the way in which a matter of this kind should be dealt with.
Therefore, I hope the House will consider whether this debate should not be adjourned. In a few days time, or at some convenient opportunity, the House can address itself to the subject and decide whether it is the kind of question


that should go to the Committee of Privileges or not. I am bound to say it does seem to me a very odd thing that it should be said to be a breach of Privilege for a Member of Parliament to send a letter which has been sent to him, to somebody else. I am sure that many of us must have sent many letters that have been sent to us by our constituents or some other people to somebody else. I have never heard that that was any ground for complaint of misconduct.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I was about to rise before the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne rose. We do not want to debate the merits of the case now.

Mr. Churchill: Another point which seems to me to make it important that the debate should be adjourned and that the House should consider precedents before they submit the complaint to the Committee of Privileges is that a member of another place is involved. The Right Reverend Bishop of Rochester is a peer. Surely it would be only reasonable and decorous for us to be sure that we had not in any way infringed the privileges of another place before we decide offhand to remit the matter to the Committee of Privileges in which the conduct of a member of another place will be directly involved.
At any rate, that is a point of substance, and although I could easily expatiate on the subject I have no wish to stand between the House and the Secretary of State for War whose statement everybody is waiting with so much eagerness. Therefore, I will content myself with moving—[Interruption.]—I will do it much quicker if hon. Members will keep quiet—that the debate be adjourned.

Earl Winterton: On a point of order. In view of the unprecedented nature of these proceedings—at any rate unprecedented in recent years—and with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I feel I am entitled to ask you for advice as a member of the Committee of Privileges, advice which no doubt other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will be anxious to hear. It is as to whether or not members of the Committee of Privileges should vote if there is a Division. With the greatest respect,

I have never before heard of the House being asked to decide.
Without any reflection on the Chair, if I may say so it has hitherto been decided by the Chair. Perhaps you can advise as to whether we should abstain from voting.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to think of that and give advice later.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am very much impressed by what the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has said. I find myself in exactly the same position as he is in; I am also a member of the Committee of Privileges. I had only sought to intervene—and, Mr. Speaker, I would gladly have your Ruling as to whether it is proper for me to do so or not—to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who has moved the adjournment of these proceedings, that he should reconsider the matter and follow what has been, as far as I know, the invariable practice in these cases in the past.

Mr. Eden: There never has been any case.

The Attorney-General: One has only to appreciate the atmosphere that exists in the House at the moment, which, I am afraid, must exist again if the matter comes up for debate before the whole House in a few days' time, to realise that it would be very difficult to approach the problem which has been raised by the Motion in a detached impartial and judicial way.
I speak with great diffidence on this matter, because I have been a member of this Committee for only six years. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman and I were both on the Committee together we took very much the same view about the matters we had to discuss. We were both agreed that we must discuss them, and we did discuss them, in as dispassionate and judicial way as we possibly could. I remember that one of the cases we had to discuss at that time—I think he was on the Committee then—was the case of a Member of Parliament who was alleged to have disclosed improperly to an outside person a matter which had come to his knowledge as a Member of Parliament.
I think I am right in saying, because I have studied, as no doubt other Members have, the whole of the precedents extending over scores and scores of years in the past, that in a case of this kind— and it has been the practice and tradition in the past, certainly within my knowledge within the last six years—if the question of Privilege is raised, the House decides without debate whether it shall go to the Committee for a report. All that then happens is that the Committee, in a judicial way—and I hope that it will discharge that function on this occasion, as it has in the past—considers precedents, hears statements, and what are the facts, and then makes its report to the House on the basis of which the House freely discusses the matter. I think that in the last case the House rejected the report of the Committee of Privileges and adopted some slightly different procedure from that which had been recommended.
I should have thought that it was to the great advantage of the House and the great dignity of our proceedings that we should not discuss this matter in a heated political atmosphere, but that it should be discussed quietly and dispassionately, so that the facts can be ascertained and the precedents explained and the whole matter reported in that way to the House, leaving the House free either to reject the report or to arrive at a different conclusion, or to do whatever it thinks right. It would seem to me to be quite unfortunate and contrary to our traditions that we should have a general discussion on the matter in the kind of atmosphere that exists now.

Mr. Churchill: I can only speak again with the indulgence of the House. I would point out that there are many precedents for matters of Privilege having been discussed in the House before being remitted to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: The Attorney-General has appealed to the House to accept the Motion without debate because he has said this is the invariable practice. I should like to ask whether it is really true that this is the invariable practice. It seems to me that the invariable practice, as far as I can remember in my own comparatively short experience of this House, is that you, Mr. Speaker, rule that there is a

prima facie case of a breach of Privilege and it is then customary for the House, without debate, to accept that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. We are today in an entirely different position. You have said that you are not prepared to rule that this is not a breach of Privilege, which is quite a different thing. Therefore, I submit that we are put into some difficulty and it does not follow that we are under an obligation to accept the Motion without debate.

Sir Ian Fraser: It seems to me that there are two elements in this matter, one of which is time, that a Member must bring a matter to your notice, Mr. Speaker, at the earliest possible moment. The other is prima facie evidence. I call to mind a case within recent months when a Member came to you, Mr. Speaker, and said, "I have not the full prima facie evidence available, but I have heard that such and such has appeared in a paper. May I raise the matter today?" And you said, "Yes. You may raise it today, and we will then adjourn discussion until tomorrow, when you can get the paper."
I suggest that here is a case where, although the prima facie evidence produced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has been put before us, we have not had an essential element in the matter, namely, a reasoned statement by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers). Therefore, I submit that there is no adequate material before us for a prima facie judgment and, that being so, it is reasonable and within precedent to adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: It is within precedent, but we have the Motion before us, and we cannot get away from it. In reply to the question put by the noble Lord, if it does come to a vote Members, whether they are members of the Committee of Privileges or not, can use their discretion and vote. After all, they are not prejudging the matter, because it is a question of whether we adjourn the debate or not.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: If it is necessary to give notice to an hon. Member before any charges are made and no notice has been received, should we not have some evidence that the letter was actually handed over and that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)


has not forgotten it and put it in his pocket?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has stated what he has done, and we must accept it.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Some confusion seems to have arisen through the procedure which has been adopted this afternoon. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has raised what he submits to be a prima facie breach of Privilege, and he has been asked to bring the letter to the Table. It would be normal, as I understand the procedure, for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether there is a prima facie breach of Privilege or not and, that having been decided, for a Member from the Government Front Bench then to move that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges, in which case the judicial and impartial atmosphere of the Committee which has been described by the Attorney-General could then be preserved and a heated debate on the Floor of the House avoided.
That is the only way that the Committee of Privileges, which is composed of Members of the House, who must have their party views, can preserve an atmosphere of independence and judicial impartiality; but they can only hope to do that if there is no heated debate on the Floor of the House. That is the reason why it is important that a decision shall come from the Chair as to whether or not there is a prima facie case. That procedure seems to have become a little confused. I am submitting that what should be done is that consideration of whether or not there is a prima facie case should be adjourned by you, Mr. Speaker, and that when you have considered it you can rule whether or not it is a subject to go to the Committee of Privileges.

The Attorney-General: I would ask, if I may, that you should adopt that course, Mr. Speaker. It does put us in great difficulty if we do not have the assistance of your Ruling on the matter. The point is, to some extent, a new one. It has been raised inevitably at very short notice, but if you can find it possible to give further study of the matter and then, in the course of the next few days, rule whether or not there is a prima facie case,

we shall be able to remove this difficult matter from the arena of party controversy.

Mr. Speaker: A request has been addressed to me by the Attorney-General, and I am quite willing to comply with that request. If the matter could be raised next Tuesday or some such day, I should then have time to give a definite ruling one way or the other, and it would not be a bar to the letter not being produced at the earliest possible time.

Mr. S. Silverman: I wish to leave myself in the hands of the House. This is primarily a House of Commons matter; it is for the House to decide, and I shall have no complaint whatever it decides. I submit that these matters are for the House unless the Chair is in a position to advise the House that no prima facie case has been disclosed. I thought that was what had happened. If the House thinks it is preferable that a Ruling should be given in a positive rather than a negative form, I am content to leave it in that way.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the adjournment Motion can be withdrawn and then the other Motion can then be withdrawn.

Mr. Churchill: I shall be quite willing to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the matter on the understanding that the Motion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is also withdrawn. Then, Mr. Speaker, we shall await your Ruling on the subject.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am perfectly prepared, on the understanding which we have been discussing, to withdraw my Motion—it being understood that it is without prejudice to my right to raise the matter as soon as you indicate that you are ready to give your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member now withdraws his Motion and will move it again later if I rule a prima facie case, say, on Tuesday next.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered:
That this day the Business of Supply be taken aften Ten o'clock and be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — Army Estimates, 1951–52

MR. STRACHEY'S STATEMENT

Order for Committee read.

4.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr.Strachey): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour began his memorable speech the other night by saying that the first thing we ought to do was to reduce the temperature. I think that will happen automatically on this occasion; it is certainly necessary. A few figures stand out from this year's Army Estimates. The most obvious fact is that the total estimates are up from £300 million to £420 million— I am giving these figures to the nearest million—that is, an increase of some 40 per cent. The House must realise that these figures relate to the former rearmament programme of £3,600 million —not the new one of £4,700 million, and therefore they are all susceptible of further increase. The House ought to look at Vote 7 which, under the traditional title of "Stores," is the Vote under which we expend the money which buys the arms and equipment of the Army; and hon. Members will see that that Vote is up from £58 million to a total of £135 million —an increase of £76 million, or 130 per cent.
I think one reaction to Estimates which make increases of this magnitude is to ask whether an increase of this degree can really be effected efficiently. It may also be asked reasonably whether there is really time to plan the very vast increases in men and materials which are implied in these figures, or whether these figures are indicative of an ill-digested emergency programme and give the appearance rather than the reality of re-armament. I submit that that is a more pertinent question or criticism than the opposite one—which I do not know whether we shall hear this afternoon—that these Estimates are still too small.
I think it is reasonable to ask whether a balanced programme, in the field of

equipment and arms especially, can be achieved when we are a good deal more than doubling the rate of expenditure in a single year. By a balanced programme I mean one in which the right weapons and the right equipment are purchased, and in the right proportions. Of course, it is not too difficult to pass out orders at this rate through the very efficient machinery of the Ministry of Supply— though even here no inconsiderable work is involved—but what I am thinking of is the work of my own military advisers who have to decide on the types and kind of equipment, and the proportions between them, and who, it might be thought, have had to do all this in the last few months.
That, I think, is also true in no less a degree on the manpower side—the first four Votes in these Estimates relate to manpower—where a lesser increase, but still a very substantial one, can be seen. What lies behind these Votes is not just expansion but, as I think many hon. Members realise, the building up of what is, in effect, a new Army system to meet a new situation. There, again, the House might legitimately wonder whether this is being done wisely when such very basic decisions are involved.
The first thing I want to emphasise is that we are not engaged on a brand new emergency programme at all. What has happened, on the contrary, is that the sharp growth of international tension in the last few months has forced us to seek to put into operation much more rapidly than we had anticipated a programme which has been slowly and gradually maturing over the whole of the last five and a half years. That is true both on the manpower side and on the equipment side. I think it is true to say that successive Chiefs of the Imperial General Staff, successive members of the Army Council, my own predecessors and, last but not least, the discussions of this House, have added something to the evolution of a post-war programme for the British Army on both sides—manpower and equipment; and that programme or policy was about reaching maturity in 1950.
What has really been done in this rearmament programme in the last six or nine months is that we have decided to attempt to put that general policy and programme into operation far more


rapidly than had hitherto been anticipated. Perhaps to dispose of the possible view that this is still a small and slow programme, I should like to make one comparison with the last peace-time rearmament programme—and I think it is possibly the only comparison I can make. I hasten to add that I do so merely to dispose of that argument and not for any purposes of odious political comparisons.
I am dealing here with Army figures. In pre-war years from February, 1936, to February, 1939, the War Office placed orders for £125 million worth of arms and equipment. In the last six months the War Office has passed to the Ministry of Supply—that is the new procedure— orders for arms and equipment of over £350 million. Of course, there has been a change in the price level in the intermediate period. We reckon that change at about two and a half times. Prices are up by about two and a half times. But the House will see that, even allowing for the change in the price level, we have been placing orders at a rate of over six times that of the pre-war re-armament programme. I give that comparison merely to dispose of the argument that this is still a small programme.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I intervene at this juncture to ask whether the money received for the sale of arms and equipment to foreign countries is offset against the figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave?

Mr. Strachey: No. I am comparing like with like. In both cases these are actual figures of orders placed for arms and equipment in the two periods.
I now want to draw the attention of the House to the manpower side of the story. I think it is particularly important on this side to grasp that the two things we are trying to do—both the long-term and the short-term measures—are part of a policy which has been maturing over the past five and a half years. We have recently taken six measures—and I shall announce two more today—for the build-up of the manpower of both the Active and the Reserve Armies.
First, there was the increase in pay; secondly, the increase in the time of National Service to two years; thirdly, the call-up of the Z reservists; fourthly,

the arrangement which I announced on the Army Estimates this time last year by which the men coming out of National Service went into the Territorial Army; fifthly, the recall of Regular reservists, which we did last summer; and sixthly, the retention of Regulars from one year to 18 months.
There are two more measures, relatively minor perhaps but not unimportant, which I now announce. The first relates to the length of time officers and men can stay in the Army. Since fighting has always been considered, and certainly is, a young man's trade, it has been assumed that officers and other ranks left the Army in their forties. That was not, of course, universally true; a good many stayed on. But there was certainly that impression and there was the impression that a man might well be left stranded without a profession or a job to which he could turn when he left the Army in his forties.
The expansion of the Army which is going on today gives us the opportunity to alter that, and we intend so to arrange matters that majors and lieutenant-colonels, for example, will normally stay on to 55 years of age. Again, the expansion of the Army means that that will not affect the promotion of officers or their prospects or their right to retired pay nor, we are convinced, will it reduce the fighting efficiency of the Army.
For other ranks, in future it will normally be at the man's option whether he re-engages after 12 years to complete 22 years, except, of course, in the case of a man being unsatisfactory. Again, it will be possible for the man to continue in the Service after his 22 years for periods of four years at a time up to 55 years of age, but that will be at the Army's option. I should explain, too, that these older men will not necessarily be able to stay with their existing corps. It will be necessary to transfer them to more technical or more administrative jobs, and they must accept that as they grow older.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the case of officers, promotion up to major is by length of service. Will the extra 10 years affect that principle or will it mean that lieutenant-colonels and above will be promoted by selection only?

Mr. Strachey: I think it is quite without prejudice to those ranks. The second alteration is that we are revising our trade structure. This is by no means an uncomplicated matter, but very broadly what we intend to do is to reduce the three groups to two. Group C disappears, and that opens the road to better pay and prospects for tradesmen who were formerly in Group C. The details of these steps are highly complicated and we shall, of course, make a very full Press announcement on the subject tomorrow.
Those are eight measures in all—some long-term and some short-term; some of major importance and some of relatively minor importance; but they only make sense as part of the building up of the general Army system which has been hammered out as suited to our national needs in the post-war period by the War Office, the Government, the House, and, for that matter, the country in public discussion.
There must, of course, first of all be an adequate component of professional Regular soldiers. These professional regulars and the National Service men together make up what we call the active Army—the standing Army, in the old phrase; and that is fixed by Vote A of these Estimates, and the House will see that for the coming financial year it is fixed at rather over half a million men. Of those half a million, at the moment almost exactly 200,000 are serving Regular professionals.
We feel that for the obligation of the Army as a whole, including, of course, the training obligations which fall on the professionals—though they may be exercised in respect of the Reserve Army— this is still an insufficient number. It was to increase that basic component, that cadre, of relatively long-service professionals—as they are for the most part— that we increased the rate of pay last autumn. That was the basic measure which we took. But I recognise fully, and we recognised it at the time, that that could not work fast enough. That is another of the examples where we have been accelerating the long-term programme. Therefore, we had to take the two other measures which I have just mentioned, the retention of Regulars and the call-up of Regular reservists. It was, of course, distasteful to have to take those

two emergency measures, but they had to be taken. They are not haphazard and unrelated to the whole picture. They effect the build-up of the corps of professionals much more rapidly than a pay increase alone would have done.
I now come to the other hastening measure which we took, the extension of National Service, which builds up the other part of the active Army, the force of National Service men. There again, it was, of course, a rather unwelcome decision for all of us to have to increase to two years the period of National Service. It was unwelcome, let me point out to the House, not only because it placed an extra burden on the young men of this country, but also because it adversely affected the other part of the whole Army system, the reserve Army. It delayed by six months, as I shall point out when I come to deal with that reserve Army, the build-up of that Army; but still we had to take it, because it was the only way, as was widely recognised, by which in the present international situation we could get a quick influx of trained men into the active Army.
So six of our eight measures for the build-up of the active Army were those— the pay increase, retention of the Regulars, the call-up of Regular reservists, the extension of the time of National Service, and the two, perhaps relatively minor, measures which I have announced today. They were all designed to build up the active Army, and they were particularly necessary because, without them, the active Army's strength would unquestionably have fallen appreciably during this year, because it so happened that there was an abnormal run-up of men serving on comparatively short engagements. What has actually happened is this. Last August we had 350,000 men in the active Army. We have now 415,000, an increase of 65,000.
So much for the active Army. But, of course, the active Army is only one part of the general system which we are attempting to build up today. Traditionally, it was practically the whole of the British land forces. There were always, of course, some auxiliary forces since the days of the train bands, and from the time of Lord Haldane, surely one of the ablest of all Secretaries of State for War, those auxiliary forces were admirably organised in the Territorial Army; but they were


also entirely recruited on a voluntary basis and were, on the whole, long-term; there was nowhere, in our traditional British system, which endured right down to the Second World War, anything which could produce a reserve army of anything like the Continental kind.

Mr. Eden: There was no conscription.

Mr. Strachey: And there could not have been, of course, without conscription and without relatively short-term conscription, because obviously there must be a short-term element in one's active army to create, at any rate quickly, a substantial reserve army. Well, everybody knows why Britain, alone of the major countries, did not have such a system. It was because, owing to our island geographical position, we could depend on the other Service, the Royal Navy, for our initial safety.
The great change—perhaps the greatest of all these changes—that has happened in our national situation since the Second World War is that, from the military point of view, we are partly, at any rate, no longer an island. I say "partly" advisedly, because, of course, the Channel is still a very formidable military obstacle, but now our military advisers say to us about the Channel these two things: the Channel, though still a most formidable military obstacle, cannot possibly be defended by one Service alone—by the Royal Navy; it can only be made use of as a military obstacle by all three Services acting in combination—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) the day before yesterday mentioned the danger of airborne landings. But they also tell us a still more serious thing about the Channel, that although, no doubt, this island could hardly be—would not be— definitely conquered and subdued without a hostile force being able to pass the Channel, the most dreadful and terrible injury could be done to this island by long-range weapons of the V2 type, without any hostile force passing the Channel.
For those two reasons, and especially the second one, we are bound to regard our basic geographical situation changed from a military point of view, and when

such changes take place they are bound to change basic national institutions. It is a change in degree, of course. We have always in practice found the defence of the opposite shores of the Channel of the greatest importance. But now it has become almost, if not quite, a life and death matter, and it is that, basically, which has caused us to adopt —not in identical form—but to adopt something approaching the continental military system. It is that which has made us, over these last five and a half years, come to see the necessity for the creation of a reserve army.
It is true, of course, that we have not usually discussed it in those terms in this House. We have usually discussed the necessity of using men of the National Service part of the Army in the active Army to fufil its current commitments, and we have discussed that mainly, I think, because that has been what has determined the length of National Service; but the issue whether we should have National Service at all is really determined by the need—and it is a new and uncomfortable need for this country—to build up a reserve Army, which can only be done by short-term, conscript National Service.
But, having said that, one notices that we might, of course, have gone further towards the orthodox continental military system, in which we should have had our reserve Army, into which our conscripts could have passed after their term of National Service, and which would then have been organised and administered as a part of the Regular Army. Characteristically, probably, we have not done that. We have sought to take one of our existing institutions, the Territorial Army, formed and devised for very different purposes, and to adopt it for this new purpose in which it becomes a volunteer cadre or basis for the reserve Army, and on to which we seek to graft the outflow of National Service men when they come out of their period of National Service; and that is the way in which we are attempting to form our reserve Army.
The National Service Acts of 1948 to 1950 imposed, as the House knows, something which, very broadly and approximately, one may call Territorial Army obligations—obligations of the Territorial Army type—on the National Service man


for three and a half years after his period of National Service. They imposed 15 days' camp, in particular, each year, and the equivalent of five days' more training each year. Those are, of course, smaller obligations than those of the volunteer Territorial, but they are of the same type; and by means of those obligations we shall raise, in the course of the next three and a half years, a reserve Army of between 400,000 and 500,000 men, some 100,000 Territorial volunteers, and well over 300,000 National Service men. At the end of that period we shall possess something which this country has never possessed before, a considerable force of organised and trained Reserves.
It is out of that force, of course, which must come, not only those 12 Territorial Army divisions of which the Prime Minister spoke the other day, but also a very large part of Anti-Aircraft Command. We should never forget what a very large commitment for the Army, in both men and equipment, Anti-Aircraft Command is today. But—and I readily admit it is a very big "but"—that was planned to take place only over the next three and a half years. Therefore, although progress had begun, we had to take some further steps.
Of course, progress in forming that reserve Army really began, in a sense, last summer when for a short period National Service men began to come out of their period of National Service and to flow into the Territorial Army at the rate of—taking the Territorials and Supplementary Reserve together—some 10,000 a month. Twenty thousand of them went into the Territorial Army. I can give the House what is, I think, a really encouraging figure, because of that 20,000 no fewer than 4,000 have since become Territorial volunteers. That is a remarkable proportion. But, unfortunately, because we had to lengthen the period of National Service that flow was interrupted last autumn, and it does not begin again until next year, on 1st April, when the long-term process of building up the reserve Army is resumed.
That is a major example of the military system which had been devised in the post-war years being steadily developed, and some other measures had to be taken to meet the sudden increase of international tension, such as we have experienced. That is why we had to look round

for some method of getting our reserve Army, to some extent at any rate, into being more rapidly than was planned by the even, steady flow of National Service men. There was no difficulty about finding a great reservoir of trained men. There were over a million such in the country, and these were the famous Z reservists, whom we have been discussing so fully in this House. These were trained men, but they were not organised men; they had no connection, except on a bit of paper in the record offices, with the particular units and arms of the Service with which they would be asked to serve in the event of war; and it was in order to remedy this and to make a real connection, as it were, between the individual trained reservist and his future unit in the event of war that we put forward this measure of the call-up of Z reservists.
We had to balance the interference with the man's life and with industry with the necessity to do something which would have some real effect in anticipating the build up of a reserve Army, and what we have done, as the House knows, is to oblige anything up to a quarter of a million Z reservists to go to camp for 15 days, to Territorial camps, to special reserve camps, or to the equivalent of Regular units and the like for 15 days. We are convinced that, balancing one set of considerations with another, that was the most appropriate step we could take in this year. Of course, it is perfectly true that they would have had more full training if we had called them up for a longer period, but, after all, these were already trained men, and our emphasis is not so much on the individual refresher training—though we do think that will be useful—as on the bringing of the teams together.
Perhaps one can see that from a very simple example in a gun team in a battery. Of the six men serving a gun in some battery of the Territorial Army two may be Territorial volunteers and four Z reservists. Those men have never met, and the four Z reservists do not in fact know that they have any connection with this particular gun or this particular battery. During this summer they will be brought together, and for 10, 11, 12 or 13 days or so will actually handle this gun. Now, who can doubt that the six men, all of them trained, will handle that gun very much better after those days of being together than they would have before


they had ever met one another? That is just a tiny example in a battery. The same thing applies mutatis mutandis in other Arms. We are not claiming that it will do everything, but we are claiming that it will do something.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: If there is no emergency within the next 12 months, will that man ever see that batterv again?

Mr. Strachey: As the hon. Member probably knows, under the Bill we are taking no such powers. In fact, we have said that we will not call up that man again, but we hope he will join the Territorials as a volunteer. That is a possible way of doing it. Of course, year by year at the rate of 10,000 a month, starting from next month, ex-National Service men will be flowing into that battery as well as into all other units of the Territorial Army.

Mr. John Tilney: The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped the Z reservists would join the Territorials. Surely many of the Z reservists will not be coming from the same area as the T.A. units.

Mr. Strachey: That may be true in some cases, and it may therefore be necessary that the man should join a different unit of the Territorial Army. That is a perfectly fair point, but it is surely not a great objection to the scheme. It is not an impossible thing to ask a man to join a different battery and to settle down in it. For this year this is a short-term measure of anticipation and acceleration to meet the present international tension, and I believe it will be effective for that purpose.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Are we to understand that these men who are called up to Territorial units will come from the locality of the Territorial unit concerned? The whole of the Territorial spirit and esprit de corps is based on locality.

Mr. Strachey: The answer to that is: So far as it is possible, but it is not possible in all cases. It will probably not be possible for the technical arms. It is much more possible in the infantry, and I dare say in the field artillery. We shall do that so far as it is possible, but there are a great many other considera-

tions which cut across it. So much for the manpower side. The point is that the short-term measures fit in to the long-term policy and accelerate the long-term programme.
I now want to call the attention of the House to the machines and equipment side, and to say something on the considerable expenditure we are making there. The House knows that, for quite obvious security reasons, I cannot give the House a comprehensive connected account of what we are spending that money on. I would, however, call attention to the fact that we shall be spending by no means all the millions voted in Vote 7 on weapons of war. An army must have an enormous amount of quite unromantic goods—household equipment, pots and pans and the like, for its married quarters.
When I use that phrase "married quarters," I think I should give the House what is the usual annual report on the progress we are making with married quarters, because I should not like the House to think that in the rush of rearmament we are neglecting married quarters, which I think are a very important consideration indeed for the comfort and, indeed, morale of the whole Army.
In 1950–51 we provided altogether 2,320 married quarters. That was a very substantial increase on the provision in 1949–50, when there were only some 1,000 married quarters, and it exceeded the number of married quarters which I forecast to the House this time last year we should be able to provide. So we are really getting going in this field. In the coming financial year, 1951–52, we believe that the figure will be 2,890, so the provision of married quarters is now going on at a pretty substantial rate.
Another vast item of expenditure is, of course, the clothing of the Army. Another is the transport, which sometimes seems almost endless. Just to pick out one item from what I call the unromantic list, I notice that we are spending almost £2 million on jerricans, but I think that if all the vehicles of the Army have to be fuelled this is no doubt necessary. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about those in store?"] Apparently it is necessary, apart from all those in store, to provide that very considerable expenditure.
Vehicles are probably the biggest single item in the whole of the expenditure. The Army, of course, has very largely in the post-war years in the matter of vehicles lived on stock. It has been a policy of make-and-mend and very considerable rebuilding of vehicles has gone on. But there is an end to that, because, as every motorist knows, there comes a time when the repair of his car is more expensive than to buy a new one, and it is an actual economy to go over to buying new vehicles. There is a large field in which the Army, in the event of another war, would impress civilian vehicles, but there is also a large field in which it cannot do that. Up in the fighting zones a special type of vehicle is needed—four-wheel drive and the like—for cross-country performance, which is much more expensive to provide, and which has to be specially built for the Army.
Again, in our expenditure on weapons, I would not like the House to think that it is all a question of revolutionary new designs and new types of weapons which will outdo anything which the Army has in stock. The real truth is—I say this perfectly frankly—that we and every other Army in the world are still re-equipping with, in many cases, arms of the same basic type as those in use at the end of the last war. In small arms, field guns and the like we, at any rate—and our technical advisers are quite firm on this point—do not know better weapons. The 25-pounder field gun is, I think, a very good example.
Yesterday, I was talking to two corporals lately returned from Korea. We propose to listen to corporals as well as to Field-Marshals; both are very important in my opinion. They spoke in the very highest terms of the standard British 25-pounder field gun. We are convinced that they are the best field gun seen in Korea today. There are in this field fortunately very large stocks in the hands of the Army, or else re-armament and the burden of re-armament, I can assure the House, would be very much greater indeed than it is. There is nothing that my technical and military advisers more deplore than any attempt to denigrate the weapons which were in use at the end of the last war, and to make the men who use them feel that their weapons are out-of-date, not much good, and ought to be replaced. That can shake

the confidence of the men who use these weapons, and it is, in many cases, completely unjustified.
Of course, there are other cases in which on the basic weapons side a great deal of work and expenditure has now to be done in making modifications to those weapons. That is being done to a lesser degree. Large stocks of these weapons are going through a programme of greater or lesser modification. The obvious example which springs to the mind in that respect is the anti-aircraft gun. We do not think that the basic anti-aircraft gun is outmoded in the least; we do not know a better; but, of course, it can be enormously improved as a weapon by additions and modifications in its ammunition, loading and aiming devices. There is a very large programme going steadily forward and very heavy expenditure is going on to it by which progressively these guns are being modified.

Mr. Ian Harvey: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the basic anti-aircraft gun, is he talking about the heavy or light gun?

Mr. Strachey: I have the 3.7 in mind.

Mr. Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say something about the light A.A. gun?

Mr. Strachey: The Bofors is still an excellent weapon but there may be newer types of gun in that field which will give better results, and very substantia] work is on hand in that direction. I was thinking of the basic 3.7.
Let me again emphasise to the House the enormous commitment to the Army and the commitment to the nation in the industrial effort represented by Anti-Air-craft Command. Just as it absorbs a substantial part of the total manpower of the whole Army, so it also absorbs a substantial part of the effort of the rearmament programme. Needless to say, the Army would be only too thankful if the ingenuity of science could devise some way in which our share of the air defence of Britain could be done in some other way, because then these very considerable resources could be liberated for increasing our effort in the field Army or in any other field which was thought right. That is one of the reasons, and even on overriding reason, why we cannot have a


greater number of men to provide more divisions for the field Army.
I think that the House would expect me to say something about tanks. The tank is, rightly or wrongly, usually accepted as being the predominant weapon in the modern land battle. Whether it will prove to be so or not is somthing which is ardently discussed by the experts. It has many enemies. The missile weapons which can be directed against it are ever growing in number, complexity and efficiency, but it is the settled conviction of my advisers that, at any rate, today the only final way of stopping an enemy tank is to have a better tank ourselves that can stop it assuredly.
I think that we are fortunate in the fact that we have a post-war tank in the Centurion in production and in now a steadily increasing rate of production. Unquestionably, I think that in the best military opinion this is regarded as a strong bid—I will not put it higher than that—to create one of the best tanks in existence today. I have had an opportunity of talking with the Commanding Officer of the 8th Hussars, just back from Korea, who commanded the Centurions there. They have not so far been very heavily engaged. They have been engaged rather in a self-propelled gun role in the fighting lately, rather than as tank against tank. He has had a good deal of experience with them now, and I know that he has tried out their reliability. He speaks with great confidence of them. They have worked a large number of miles up and down Korea, and he is extremely satisfied with their reliability, which is very important.
The second point with which he is extremely satisfied is the accuracy of the guns which he says is very remarkable indeed, and has made a very great impression, we believe, on the enemy, and, certainly, on our Allies, who have seen it at work. That, of course, is the current tank in production today. Again, I think the House would make a great mistake if it despises our stocks of older types of tank, such as the Comet, which is almost a post-war weapon, of which we have considerable resources, the Crom-wells, and other lighter tanks, of which we have stocks in reserve. These stocks of weapons are being put to very great

use, and we are not, finally, neglecting development here. A further tank beyond the Centurion is being developed.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman says a further tank is being developed. I am not asking him to give us any secrets, but can he say whether he means that we have a number of tanks in the prototype stage or on the drawing board?

Mr. Strachey: I think that is going a little too far into details. All I can say is it is going ahead, and it will not be very long before—[An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman may as well tell us now."] It would be very nice, indeed, if I could give the House the date upon which these weapons will be in the hands of the Army, but the House will agree that it would not be right for me to do any such thing.
Just as our experts are doing their best to provide the very best tank, so are they trying to provide the very best anti-tank weapons, because nobody knows which will be the more important on the battlefield of the future. A very comprehensive range of anti-tank weapons is being provided at section, platoon, battalion, and divisional levels. As the House probably knows, our infantry battalions at the moment are being re-equipped with 17-pounder anti-tank guns. The new tower of this gun which is being developed was shown to me the other day, and it will not be long before supplies of the newer weapons, the anti-tank grenades, rocket launchers and the recoil-less guns become available. I am afraid that I cannot give the dates when the less conventional anti-tank weapons will be in the hands of the infantry and available to them.
Nobody knows whether they will be the master of the tank or the tank will be the master of them. It is the old argument between protective armour and the missile throwing weapons, which is as old as the Hundred Years' War. It may be that on the battlefields of the future the man in a tank, who is equivalent of the man in armour, will be driven from the battlefields by the man with the missile just as the man in armour was driven from them by the archer and later by the arque-busier. So long as there is any doubt about this issue obviously the correct thing to do is to provide both the most


effective range of anti-tank weapons and the most effective tanks.
In this connection the House will want to be assured that the lessons of the fighting in Korea are being properly studied and analysed. I can assure the House that they are, but one should issue a word of warning about them. Those lessons want very cautious study, because conditions there are very special. It is a special terrain and a special kind of war, with the result that misleading deductions can be drawn from them, but my advisers believe that certain deductions can be taken from them.
The first lesson is that the methods of training in the British Army today are proving extremely effective and basically sound. Having regard to all the tasks that they have had to meet there, the fighting has shown that our methods of training are on the right lines. It must be remembered that the 27th Brigade in particular was a brigade not specially selected for Korea. It was in Hong Kong and contained a large number of National Service men. It had to be moved very suddenly to Korea, and during its long career in an arduous war and under heavy fighting conditions it has earned an unsurpassed reputation.
The second lesson which I think my advisers are ready to learn from Korea is that one can have too much transport. It is a lesson they were willing to learn, because before Korea they had already reduced the number of vehicles per division by 20 per cent. The experience of Korea has confirmed the view which had already been taken.

Brigadier Head: Does that mean a reduction of 20 per cent in all establishments or just the troops going to Korea?

Mr. Strachey: Oh no, in all establishments the number of vehicles per division is being reduced.
In general the Korean fighting appears to have shown that, vitally important as arms, equipment and machines are, the men using them and the spirit of the men using them is more important still. Here I am sure the House would wish to pay the highest tribute both to the 27th and 29th Brigades for their fighting in Korea. They have stuck it through a terrible Korean winter. The 27th Brigade has

many young National Service men in it, and the 29th Brigade has had many Regular reservists within its ranks—older men whom we have taken out of civilian life and asked to go through the really terrible and arduous conditions of a Korean winter.
We have asked them to fight in a war right on the other side of the world, whose origins and causes, however clear they may seem to us, are not as immediately clear as would be the defence of a man's own home, near that home. In spite of all this, our men have stuck it right through this grim winter with sub-zero temperatures, with very little shelter and when often it is necessary to sleep out. Right through this winter the men of both Brigades have stuck to their jobs and carried on under these arduous conditions. It is an extraordinary record of British doggedness, skill and courage.
It is natural, of course, to think especially of them, but when we do so I am sure the House would not like the troops in any other theatre, such as Malaya where there is only less arduous conditions, to imagine we have forgotten about them. In Malaya they have to go on month after month with semi-warfare, in which the casualty rate is perhaps not so high but in a different way it is warfare, which is as difficult.

Mr. Alport: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the sickness ratio in Korea is any higher than the normal for active operations?

Mr. Strachey: It was no higher up to the month of January, but in that month it went rather higher because of the severe conditions. I have looked at the sickness figures very closely, and I can give them to the House at a later stage if it is so desired. For instance, speaking from memory, there have been 61 cases of frostbite in the Forces throughout the winter, which is not bad, although, of course, it is 61 too many. On the whole, considering the very arduous conditions and severe climate, I do not think the average up to January has been any higher than normal.
Something which the House showed itself only yesterday to be deeply concerned with was the extent of the training of our men in Malaya. Since that was raised on Tuesday, I have again


carefully consulted my advisers, including the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. I asked him whether the 16 weeks training, which the men must have as a minimum before they go to Malaya, is adequate. It is his considered view that further weeks of training at home would be of no particular service to the man before he goes to Malaya and that after 16 weeks—the man has always been in the Forces a much longer time than 16 weeks—of basic and continuous training at home, the only thing is to put him into his unit. That does not mean that he has to be put on jungle patrol but that he joins his unit in Malaya and that his further training must take place with his unit.
There are troops in other theatres, not, thank goodness, theatres of war—Germany, Austria, the Middle East, Hong Kong, and many other places in the world where troops are serving—where, by their very presence, they give us inestimable service. Our thanks go equally to them. With the men, as they have shown themselves in Korea and elsewhere, the equipment which we possess and the new equipment that is now beginning to come in, we are building a magnificent Army. There is no doubt whatever about it, and we shall see that an Army unsurpassed is being built. I have of course been in the War Office only for one year. That is a very short period even to get the feel of what has happened. In recent weeks, especially, there is no doubt that as the Army increases in size, and as the new equipment begins to come to it, its confidence in itself is growing to a very marked degree. Three new divisions have been formed in the last nine months and a general feeling of accomplishment is beginning to grow.
Finally, I would say a word on the purpose of this very considerable augmentation of our land forces. I say, with respect, to my Service colleagues—and I naturally do not ask them to agree with me—that in the new international situation that we are unfortunately in, these land forces are the very foundation of our re-armament. What is the purpose of them? We cannot reiterate too often that their purpose is to avert the outbreak of a third world war. We repudiate—by "we" I do not mean this side of the House only but the whole House

—utterly the insane doctrine that the third world war has already begun, and even the less insane doctrine that the third world war is inevitable.

Lord John Hope: Will the right hon. Gentleman pass that on to the Lord President of the Council, who credited this side of the House with the very reverse attitude in his speech only a few days ago?

Mr. Strachey: On that occasion there may have been some occasion for it. Anyone who does take those views outside is confusing two very different things. It is perfectly true that a struggle between two different systems is taking place in the world today. On the economic field it is a struggle between very different ways of organising the productive process and of dividing the product. There are not only two different ways of doing it but many different ways. It is a struggle in the political field to decide how economic power is to be exercised, whether by the democratic way or not. That struggle is not by any means peaceful in all its aspects. It is being carried out by very rough methods in many parts of the world. Nevertheless it is being carried out in a way which certainly is not a third world war, and we should very quickly discover if a third world war did break out.
The main thing I want to say is that it is immensely to our advantage in the West that we should keep the struggle on the level that it now occupies and avert the outbreak of a third world war. Not everybody agrees with that. The Russians do not agree with it. They say that the imperfections of our economic system will cause it to break down in the absence of a third world war. It would be a frightful pity if anyone in the West came to agree with the Russians in that view. That is what I call the defeatist heresy. It is completely untrue that we stand in any risk of being defeated in the struggle so long as the struggle remains on the relatively peaceful plain that it is on today and short of a third world war. It is on that peaceful level, when compared with much of the rest of the world, that the West is so markedly gaining the advantage. In places like Britain, indispensable reconstructions of our economic life are going


on. We are certainly winning hands down.
That is not to say that the West ought never to take the offensive. We believe that we have on the political field most effective offensive weapons of great power, the weapon of political democracy, and the weapon of economic democracy towards which we are making considerable progress. We believe that those weapons are in themselves deadly weapons which nothing in the Soviet system can stand against. This creates a temptation in our antagonists to shift the field of contest on to the war level. We should be neglecting necessary preparations if we did not rearm because we regard our re-armament as a shield to our social system, which is itself our most effective weapon in this struggle.
I am not going to insult the intelligence of the House of Commons by quoting the old Roman bromide that if you want peace you must prepare for war. The real truth is that preparation for war and lack of preparation for war have both, in history, always produced war. The end of every period has always been war which has dragged down all the hopes of mankind. There are situations in which re-armament can help to avert at any rate threatened war. The preparations of a group of Allies such as ours under the North Atlantic Pact can create the Western strength which is undoubtedly a pre-requisite for the pacification for which we all long. Finally, there are certain situations in which to neglect rearmament is to invite the antagonist to take to arms. It is because we believe that Britain is in one of those situations today that we are re-arming.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Eden: I have no desire to quarrel with the earlier passages of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he explained why he, and no doubt the Government too, had come to the conclusion that National Service was inescapable. Most of us have had that problem in our minds for quite a while, and what has worried us has been the Government's changes of policy on this topic. Now they have finally, or for the time being, come to rest on a certain policy. We are glad that they should have done so.
I certainly do not want to argue with the right hon. Gentleman whether the

differences between our system and the French or some other continental system are important or not. It is easy to exaggerate the importance of those differences. What has come about has done so against our will, and, in particular, against the Tory will, for the Tory tradition has always been to dislike standing armies. Against our will, we have been compelled to have National Service here so that we may have the available forces in the early days of a contest, should it ever occur, because, with modern weapons, the early days must also be the decisive days.
With the concluding passages of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and all he had to say about the contest of will in which we are engaged, I also have no desire to quarrel. I should have put the things which we have to defend a little differently. I do not think that it is only social services which we have to defend——

Mr. Strachey: I did not say that.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Strachey: I said "the social system."

Mr. Eden: It is even more than that.

Mr. Strachey: Yes.

Mr. Eden: I think it is our way of life, our ideas of tolerance and our conception of freedom——

Mr. George Wigg: Including the sending of a letter to a bishop.

Mr. Eden: The sending of a letter to a bishop does not seem to me to be a terribly flagrant departure from the freedom of our way of life. I do not think that that remark is relevant to the eloquent peroration of the Secretary of State for War about the freedom of this country. I do not think that that instance even crossed his mind at that moment. There are deeper things than that.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to put our effort in that context, but where I wish he could have been a little more accurate was in telling us exactly what contribution we are proposing to make, particularly in Europe, so that his peroration could be most effectively carried into action. There he was discretion itself. The Service Ministers are getting absolutely alike in their various speeches. I


am now waiting to hear what we shall be told about the Royal Navy. The Service Ministers always give us only one figure —we had it again today—that for married quarters. The only figure we had from the Secretary of State for Air the other day was that for married quarters and that has been the only figure given to us by the Secretary of State for War today. I wonder what we shall be told about the Royal Navy.
I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how many divisions we were working up to in the West, but we got nothing about that at all. I am not limited by being the Secretary of State for War. I know the figures that we have had. The Minister of Defence gave them to us a little earlier. I want to ask one or two questions about them.
First, I should like to join with the Secretary of State in just simply saying that the troops in Malaya and Korea are doing a magnificent job. Both those distant regions, which are so very different in climate and geography, are in the main what a soldier would call "infantry country." The dense tropical jungle of Malaya is an ideal ground for ambush and infiltration, as all who fought in it during the last war know only too well. But the troops in Malaya now have an even more arduous and exacting task because they seldom have to fight any recognisable enemy in the open. They are faced with the task which the British soldier, and particularly the infantry man, has often had to confront in years gone by, even in more stable times than these: the task of dealing with the bandit in circumstances which make it difficult to distinguish between friend and foe.
I should like to say a word on a topic mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the extent of the training which our soldiers should have before they take part in battle conditions in Malaya. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Questions on this topic on Monday. As I understand it, men are liable to be posted to Malaya after 16 weeks' training. I only want to say that, in my view, there is no objection whatsoever, to a man going to Malaya after 16 weeks and continuing his training on the spot, where he will get used to conditions of climate and local fighting; but there is, in my

judgment, every objection to men going into action in the jungle after only 16 weeks' training or anything like that. There, I think, is the clear definition.
I do not know whether there is any organisation for training men in Malaya after they get to that country and before they are posted to units. With great respect, I was not impressed by the argument that these men can only get their experience with units. Most of the units are in action, and men who have had only 16 weeks' training should not go to units which are in action. In the present conditions of jungle fighting, it is impossible to avoid a company or platoon being sent into action, and if the unit contains men with little training it is fair neither to these men nor to the comrades who are with them. What seems to me to be needed is some system of training in Malaya which the men can have in that country before they are posted to units on active service. If that does not exist now, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take steps to create it. I do not believe that it presents any insuperable difficulties.
Korea, with its mountains and gorges and violent extremes of climate, offers conditions which compare more closely to those of the North-West Frontier. The whole of the campaign there has illustrated the need for tough and highly-skilled infantrymen, and those qualities have certainly been shown by our two brigades. I think their fighting qualities have been fully recognised by commanders and Allies alike.
As one examines these Estimates, which it is our duty to do today, the first consideration that comes to one's mind is how formidable is the increase in cost of every form of military equipment these days. As a result of much endeavour, we now have an active Army—I am not at the moment referring to the reserve Army —which, in numbers if not in fighting formations, is nearly double the Regular Army which we had in 1939. The House will observe that I am making a favourable comparison with the present day because I am excluding the Territorials of 1939. On that basis, we have nearly doubled the number; but the cost is about five times as great.
There is another comparison of strength. Despite all the steps which have now, belatedly but quite rightly, been taken to


improve pay and other conditions in the Army, where are we in relation to the strength of the active Army? It is still a little less than it was at the end of 1948. I believe that is correct. In other words, despite these special measures, we are now approximately where we were two and a half years ago in so far as the strength of the active Army is concerned, and in some parallel directions we have actually lost ground. It is, unfortunately, true that the number of Colonial and Gurkha troops shows a further drop in 1951–52 compared with last year, and last year's figures were down compared with those for the year before. I will give the House the figures. In 1949–50 our Colonial Forces, including Gurkhas, totalled 94,000; next year the figure was 71,000; this year the estimate is 67,000. That is a trend that most of us would much like to see reversed. I think it is rather disturbing in regard to the many commitments that we have. I hope the Government will give us some explanation of those figures.
Now I come to what really matters in looking at these figures of the number of men we have under arms. What matters is the real value of this active Army as a field force. I had hoped we would hear something about that from the Secretary of State, but he has not told us anything new. I do not want to be unkind, but what we heard was an account of the Army which we would have liked to hear if we had been away from this country for some years.
We were told that there are nine of these divisions. The Minister of Defence told us the other day that we should have the equivalent of 10 Regular divisions in existence by next month. Later in the same debate, the Secretary of State for War told us there would be 4⅓ in Germany, 4⅓ elsewhere overseas, and 1⅓ at home. The point the House has to bear in mind is that these 10 equivalent divisions are not 10 divisions in the field, or anything remotely like it. These equivalent divisions, as they are called by the Minister of Defence, include a number of battalions which are on garrison and other duty as isolated units, or maybe as brigades, but without their ancillary troops. I make no complaint about that. On the contrary, the role they fulfil is essential. The Army has to guard, in conjunction with the Royal Air Force, our

lifelines on the sea by protecting the key points on these lifelines and other vital places whence flow certain supplies which must be brought to us by sea. But battalions on such duty are definitely not part of any field force, and they are not available for duty as part of it.
If we are to build up an effective deterrent in Europe, such as the right hon. Gentleman apparently had in mind in his peroration, it is essential that we should have available in Germany as our share an effective contribution of at least six divisions this year. Over and above that, we should try to build up here in Britain a strategic reserve available as a reinforcement, whether for Europe or for any other part of the world. I should like to hear from the Government whether they share that view of what are our requirements and duties.
At once the question arises: can these commitments be met with our existing manpower? So far as the numbers available from call-up of National Service men are concerned, I should have said that they could certainly be met. Of course we all understand that our difficulties are accentuated at this time by the inevitable dispersion of our forces. We must have troops available in the Middle East and in the Far East. As a result we have to send National Service men long distances for short periods. This is in every way unsatisfactory, but even that is not our whole, or even our chief problem.
Our chief problem is still the availability of Regular officers and N.C.O.s who alone can carry out the training to build up these forces. That is why I was disturbed when I read in the memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman submitted I to the House this sentence:
The Regular content of the active Army is still below what is necessary to support efficient forces of the size we are now required, by our international commitments to maintain.
That is a clumsy sentence, but it appears to mean that we have not enough Regulars to help to do the job which we have to do. Above all, the shortage is serious as regards Regular officers and N.C.O.s. Both are indispensable and both are in short supply.
It is of no use to ask regiments, even those with long traditions, suddenly to treble themselves to meet an urgent need.
They cannot do it without the indispensable cadre of leadership. The words of the Secretary of State about Regular officers are, therefore, grave. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I am still not satisfied with the Regular officer situation and with the comparative dearth of candidates of high quality for Regular commissions.
This House ought really to try to examine this problem today to see what lies behind it and whether we can contribute anything towards its solution.
I am convinced that one of the main reasons why the Army is not getting the type of young candidate it wants is because there is no security for a full career in place of a mere introduction to life. The right hon. Gentleman said something at the beginning of his speech which I hope means a new approach by the Army to this problem. I want to see if I have understood him aright. What the young officer has now to face is at least the possibility, if not the probability, that when he reaches the rank of major or lieut.-colonel at the age of 40 or 45, he will suddenly find himself out of a job, having to find a new way of life at an age when that is not an easy thing to do. Is there any way of dealing with this? If I understood the right hon. Gentleman, I liked what he seemed to have in mind.
We know that the Army today has an ever-lengthening tail and an ever-growing staff. Some of this is no doubt inevitable, but cannot we contrive to use for the more sedentary tasks a larger number of those officers who are perfectly qualified in every respect except that they are no longer active enough for work in the field? If I understood the right hon. Gentleman, it is just such a scheme that he is trying to launch. It will be difficult, and it will present many problems of organisation, but I am convinced that it has to be done if the Army is to attract and keep the best quality candidates as younger officers. If these men knew that they had a reasonable chance of staying on for a full career, as is the case in the Royal Air Force now, they will be more ready to devote their lives to a Service which has already claimed their loyalty.
If any such arrangement as that were possible, it would have an additional advantage which the right hon. Gentle-

man did not mention. It would free a number of officers in the prime of their life and service for regimental rather than for War Office or headquarters duty.
In the units I know, I have been struck by how many of the officers at the best period of their lives are engaged in excellent and admirable occupations which are not those of active service with their battalions. If we could get those back and replace them by older men, who could perfectly well do their present jobs, we would revitalise the Service and increase the strength of the fighting Forces. If the right hon. Gentleman can work out a plan like that, he will have our fullest support in carrying it out. It will be difficult. With all respect, I know enough about the Adjutant General's Department to know how difficult it will be.
I suggest that these officers should not be regarded as retired when they take over those other tasks. They ought to be continuing to earn promotion side by side with the civil servants with whom they will be working. I hope that a scheme of that kind will be worked out. The ominous drop with which we have been confronted in the supply of Regular officers even since the end of 1948, means that drastic steps must be taken. If they are not, we shall never build up an effective Army in the field.
There is another objective which I should like the Secretary of State for War to set himself. We must make every attempt to make the Army a popular service. Anything the right hon. Gentleman or the Army Council can do to restore the sentimental attachment to units whether they be Regular or Territorial which was once so strong a force, will aid him immeasurably in his task. It will help him to get recruits. We must try to recreate that corporate spirit which was one of the most potent forces in the volunteer Army. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked about this today and he has said he will do it within the limits of the possible. He must not accept the limits of the possible as laid down by the War Office in this matter; he must surpass them. Admittedly the problems there will be great too, but the closer we can keep to the territorial foundation for our Army, the stronger will be the instinctive loyalties on which we shall be able to work.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get back—he did not tell us so today, but I think my understanding is right—to training for the county regiments at their own infantry depots. That is a step in the right direction, but we must try to carry it further. The question of local loyalty applies, of course, strongly to the Territorial Army also, and it is here all the more important because in this field we are carrying out an entirely new experiment.
I am not sure that the House understands how completely unique this experiment is. We are creating units of National Service men for which the training cadres will all be volunteers. That is something that, to the best of my knowledge, has never before happened in military history; it does not exist in any other army in the world. It can, I think, succeed, but to bring it about we are asking a great deal of these volunteers, who, in their original conception, joined with their friends for service which they understood was to develop and to fulfil the traditions and forms of soldiering which had always been enjoyed in the past.
Now, they are doing something quite different—they have to help to train National Service men. Again, if this can be kept largely on a territorial basis, there will be a much better chance of making a successful job of it. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us assurances about this. But here, as elsewhere, the final answer is to produce the best results. Those volunteer cadres will need help from the Regular Army to carry the job through, and so we come back to the shortage of Regular officers and N.C.O.s.
I want to refer to one other topic before I close. I made some reference in the debate on the Air Estimates to the possibility of an airborne invasion, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred today. I even attempted a calculation as to the number of divisions that might be dropped here by a four-engine air force of, say, between 500 and 1,000 aircraft. The Government made no comment about that at the time. I do not know what is in their minds, but I am absolutely convinced that we have a duty to make now such arrangements as lie in our power to deter any attempts at any

airborne invasion whether by paratroops or by any other form. In the air, the essential is the provision of night fighters.

Mr. Churchill: And day.

Mr. Eden: Yes, but I am assuming that it would come by night and that that was the greater danger of the two. On land, what steps should be taken? One which it seems to me should be done now —and I put this to the House—is to create without further delay the cadres of the Home Guard and to issue to them the necessary equipment so that they will immediately play their part should the need arise. We cannot be short of rifles, unless we have disposed of, or thrown away, the very large stocks we had at the end of the war.

Mr. Churchill: Five or six million.

Mr. Eden: I should be glad of an assurance that the rifles are available. As my right hon. Friend says, we had five or six million at the end of the war.
I am not suggesting that we should immediately re-form the full Home Guard as we had it in the last war, when it contributed most disinterested and loyal service over many years. What I suggest is that the essential organisation should now be set on foot. Commanders down to company commanders, adjutants and quartermasters and all the key personnel, should be enrolled now and should know what their duties are. Once this has been done, they should be empowered themselves to take the names of men willing to serve so that, should an emergency arise or be threatened, they are all at once available. That is my suggestion, and I add, of course, that the arms should go out to the depots to be available should the need arise.
All this effort, of course, will have to be co-ordinated with Civil Defence. I do not want to go into this topic in great detail today because we are going to ask for a special occasion in order to discuss it, but I emphasise to the Government quite simply our view that the preliminary steps to revive the Home Guard should be taken now. That is particularly important in the country districts. It may be that in towns the role of the Home Guard will be associated with Civil Defence. As I have said, that has all to be worked out. There will also be the


great advantage that the Home Guard will be able to take part in anti-aircraft defence, as they did in a very considerable measure and very effectively in the last war.
I want now to say a few sentences about equipment. There are any number of these problems which could be considered in this debate—we could have a whole day to discuss them and nothing else; but I am raising now these few points which I and my hon. Friends consider to be important. First, about tanks. I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said just now about the Centurion. What we should like to know is whether we have enough Centurions and other tanks of comparable quality for the equipment of the three armed divisions to which we are committed and allowing, of course, for the necessary reserves which must always be available.
The second of these points is about the anti-aircraft defences, of which again the right hon. Gentleman rightly spoke. We want to know whether our equipment is in step with world development. By this I mean, is it up to the requirements which will be demanded of it as a result of the speed and height at which modern aircraft fly? Are the guns and predictors in production or available to meet this difficult development which we now have to face as compared with the last war? Thirdly, there is the antitank weapon. Are we ready to go into production on a gun which has the range and whose shell has sufficient penetrative power to destroy any tank it is likely to meet? We should very much like to know that. And has the method of the carriage of that gun been satisfactorily determined?
An equally important question, which has not yet been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, is whether we have any plans to provide armoured carriers for the infantry working with tanks. The right hon. Gentleman will probably know that in the closing stages of the last war the chassis of Sherman tanks were often used for this purpose, and I believe that they were highly successful. Is it proposed to continue this practice? Are the chassis of the Shermans available or, alternatively, is some other vehicle being constructed? If so, when will it be available for units? It is of the first import-

ance that the infantry fighting with armour should have an adequate measure of protection for the tasks they have to do.
Finally, there is the problem, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of "B" vehicles—lorries and other general purpose vehicles. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we are working on wartime stocks, which require a great deal of reconditioning and repair. But what is to happen if mobilisation has to take place? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to call on civilian vehicles, and presumably we shall have to do this, as we have done it before. Are the plans for their impressment complete? If not they ought to be made complete immediately. Meanwhile, are any new vehicles in this category being produced, because otherwise our "B" vehicles in the Army will just fall to pieces altogether; they are so old and have been patched and repaired so often.
I conclude in the same vein as I did on the Air Estimates. In all the difficulties of the present time there is one element that can encourage us. That is, the quality of the men and of the leadership we now have in our Army—that is first-class. I was immensely impressed with what little I was able to see of our units during my recent visit to Germany. The B.A.O.R. is without doubt a steadily improving fighting force, admirably and, indeed, imaginatively led, and working with excellent material—I mean, in the men—and improving material in the equipment. Our duty is this House is to see that these men have what they so well deserve: the best that we can provide and the most intelligent support that it is in our power to give.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can complain of the way the discussion has gone so far. With many of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) most of the House on both sides can agree, and we can consider them in a dispassionate fashion. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend, or the Under-Secretary, when he deals with these matters later on, will give proper consideration to the points put forward by the right hon. Member, who himself has occupied


the eminent position of Secretary of State for War.
In listening to my right hon. Friend with whose speech I was in general agreement, I was struck by one noticeable feature. It was something on which the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington commented. My right hon. Friend's speech was as wide a survey as he could have given in the space of an hour and I have not the slightest doubt that he, like his predecessors when they considered what to put in their speeches, had to throw overboard much which would have been of interest to the House. The particular feature which struck me was the lack of information—much of which, of course, could not be given here—which would enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to form an unbiased and judicial assessment of the state of readiness and contentment of our Army.
I am going to make one suggestion which I hope will meet with the sympathy of the House. Hon. Members will know that we have an organisation, the inter-Parliamentary Union, whereby hon. Members are given facilities to go to different parts of the world and see something of what is happening in the political systems of other countries. The remarkable thing today is that with so many hon. Members, youngish hon. Members, who came into the House in 1945 with considerable battle experience, I imagine, very few are given the opportunity that was given the Leader of the Opposition to visit the Army at work. As an ex-Secretary of State for War, I am almost completely out of touch with what is happening in Army circles, unless, like the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, I contact those whom I know in the Army and hope that, perhaps, they will invite me, as they invited the right hon. Gentleman, to visit the Forces under their command. But it should not be left only to private initiative and I suggest to my right hon. Friend and to the heads of the other Services that they should take an opportunity, now that they are calling up so many Z reservists of the last war, of giving facilities to hon. Members with experience, who are desirous of doing so, to visit the troops at work in different stations.
The suggestion has been made to my right hon. Friend that a Parliamentary delegation should go from this House to Korea. I remember so well during the

war, when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was Prime Minister, that we had the greatest difficulty in convincing him that hon. Members should be allowed to visit the troops in the field. It was not until 1945 that six Members of Parliament of all parties were allowed to visit the troops in Italy. I have a suspicion that, in view of my activities in the House at that time and elsewhere, I was looked upon with a certain amount of suspicion by commanding officers and commanders. I would only say that no hon. Member who has held His Majesty's Commission would be likely to do anything to subvert the allegiance, loyalty and duty of those serving in the Forces and I am quite certain from my experience that the effect on the troops with whom one came into contact was mutually beneficial.
The Americans sent far bigger deputations of Congressmen to their armies in the field. Particularly in view of the temperature of the debate this afternoon, which, possibly because it has been initiated from the benches opposite by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and not by another right hon. Gentleman whom I might mention, has so far been conducted in What I would call a Council of State manner, something like this might be considered. I would urge sincerely that, however much both sides of the House disagree with each other sometimes on personal matters—and it is no use disguising the fact, that, my right hon. Friend himself has incurred the grave displeasure of the Opposition on more than one occasion— nevertheless on matters affecting the safety of the State, such as defence questions, we should try to keep away from these constant bickerings and divisions which may divide the House.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I agree with the right hon. Member to a certain extent, but he must realise that it is absolutely essential, quite apart from personalities, if a right hon. Gentleman is not doing what is right and safe for the country that we must press that view and go on pressing it until we get a reasonable answer.

Mr. Bellenger: I concur generally with that view. If hon. Members opposite really think that my right hon. Friend or his colleagues in the Service Departments are not looking after the affairs of the


country most efficiently, obviously this is the place to ventilate their grievances. But, judging from the point of view put to the House this afternoon by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, it seemed to me that he was trying to direct his remarks in a much more conciliatory and, I will not say non-critical, but constructively critical, manner, and that is all I am asking for.
I have my own views of what sort of instrument we should create for this purpose. It is not without interest that in the United States, which probably, second to Russia, has now the largest armed forces in the world, and also in France, another military nation, they have military affairs committees in their Parliaments. I know how much that is against our tradition, but my right hon. Friend this afternoon mentioned one or two things which are quite against the Orthodox customs and traditions of the War Department.
For example, what he said this afternoon about increasing the period of service of officers in the Army to 55 and other ranks beyond 22 years I should imagine was not easily accepted by the Army Council, but I believe it is a right decision to make. I believe that to dismiss an officer who has reached by time-promotion the rank of major and who is not able to make the lieutenant-colonel grade by selection at 45 years is to waste excellent material which could be of use to the Army and which is so often of great use to civilian organisations when he leaves the Service. Unfortunately though, as my right hon. Friend says in his Memorandum, it is not easy to assimilate these ex-officers in civil life when they are thrown out of the Service at 45.
I do not wish to detain the House for a long time this afternoon because this is the occasion when we should hear the views of as many Members as possible, even those who, like the hon. and gallant Member the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) are extremely critical of the Government, for the one purpose of assisting my right hon. Friend or whoever occupies his position for the time being to get the best possible Service.
I wish to make one or two remarks about the Regular Army. Like the right

hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington I view with grave alarm the running-down of the Regular Army. My right hon. Friend was perhaps a little coy this afternoon in telling us how the Army is wasting away. We find in the Memorandum figures which tell us the numbers of those who are enlisting in the Army, but we have not the comparative numbers of those who are leaving. If we had them we should see the picture in a better perspective.
As one who represents what is in the main a mining constituency, I do not share in the views of those hon. Members who sometimes press the Government to release miners from the Army. I see no reason whatever why a miner, who is now just as much entitled to choose his occupation as is anyone else, should not volunteer to serve in the Armed Forces if he wishes to do so; or why we should try to direct him to the mines, which is what some of my hon. Friends desire to achieve. All of us agree that we do not want to lose trained manpower from the mines, but if a miner feels that he would prefer a life above ground, a healthy life in the main, rather than work in a mine underground, I for one would not attempt to deter him.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend realise the tremendous lack of manpower in the coalmines, which are indispensable even to the War Office?

Mr. Bellenger: I fully agree, but that does not affect the situation which we have to face today and in the future. If we have not the trained manpower to meet the aggression which may come upon us from certain quarters, I am afraid that our coalmines will occupy the same position as did those of France, Belgium and other countries that were overrun during the war. I recognise the necessity of trained manpower for the mines. All I am asking is for freedom of choice for the individual to serve in the mines, if he prefers to do so, or in the Armed Forces, if that is his preference.
The fact cannot be disguised that, however much my right hon. Friend may try to create divisions, as obviously he must do, he has to look at this problem mainly from a long-term point of view. Divisions cannot be created as quickly as all that; it will take a considerable time.


Hon. Members opposite may say that it ought to have been done earlier, and that is a question which they can argue, but if we are to create a Regular Army, it is not a short-term policy; steps have to be taken on a long-term basis. I would say that the problem is not incapable of solution.
That brings me back to the suggestion which I made at the beginning of my speech. I consider that, in view of the fact that so many hon. Members have served in the Armed Forces, many with great distinction, during the last war, we could join together somehow or other and act as great unpaid recruiters for our Regular Army. That is one of the reasons I think why every opportunity should be taken to enlist the help, in the ways I have mentioned, and otherwise, of hon. Members who are able to give some assistance.
With regard to the shortage of officers, I cannot see why a career in the Army today is not something desirable to the young man who is willing and has a spirit of adventure in him. I speak, if the House will forgive me for striking a personal note for a moment, having had one son who served during the war, another son who without any prompting from me enlisted on a Regular engagement in the Brigade of Guards and is now serving as a Regular officer in the Army, a third son who is a National Service man, and with another one following on. I hear quite a lot from these young fellows and from their comrades whom they bring to my house.
I am certain that with all the improvements which His Majesty's Government and different Secretaries of State—as my right hon. Friend graciously said this afternoon—have made, the offer which is made today to young men makes it well worth while for them, in the words of a popular broadcaster, to "have a go." It is a career which will offer them not only adventure but something worth while, particularly now that my right hon. Friend has today announced that he is to extend the period during which they can serve in the Army either in the ranks or in the commissioned ranks.
I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend, either today or perhaps later, in some wider announcement, exactly how he intends to utilise this extra period for promotion purposes, and also about

pension benefits, because I believe that if he could say something in that direction he might find that his recruiting figures would rise considerably. I regret to see that, although improvement has taken place in re-settling ex-officers and ex-Service men, due to the valiant efforts of many voluntary bodies, it is nevertheless still difficult to place ex-officers of 45 years of age. That seems to me to be a tragedy.
I know that the suggestions which I shall now make have been made before, but they are well worth repeating. We have nationalised various industries. I should have thought that a man having done his service to his country, as men and officers do by serving for over 20 years, probably the best 20 years of their lives, is entitled to some consideration in some of those large national undertakings —and not only those. I believe that much more could be done even by civilian employers if the Government themselves would give a lead in that direction.
I wish to say a few words about training, which was touched upon by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. On Monday last I asked my right hon. Friend whether his military advisers considered that 16 weeks' basic training was sufficient to equip a man for the intricate kind of fighting with which he would have to contend in places like Malaya. I was glad to hear from him today that the 16 weeks' basic training is only a part of a man's continued training before he is sent into action. I am bound to say—I agree with the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington—that I should view with a certain amount of disquiet any of my boys being sent out to places such as Malaya and having to go into front line action more or less immediately.
From my own experience I know, as do hon. and gallant Gentlemen, that it used to take—I do not know if it is now the case—six months before a man was sufficiently trained to draw his proficiency pay of an extra 6d. per day. That was in the days when infantry weapons consisted only of small arms and one or two other comparatively simple weapons; but today, when the infantry man, for example, is expected to know about a whole range of mechanical aids to warfare, I should have thought that before that soldier was put into the front line in places like


Malaya he would want considerably more than 16 weeks' basic training. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell us if there are battle schools in Malaya so that these young men can get, as it were, a pre-front line training before they are involved in very desperate conditions such as they have to meet in jungle warfare.
I cannot go as far as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington on the question of calling up the Home Guard or certain portions of it, but I agree with him to some extent. The speech of my right hon. Friend may be significant in that connection when he said that the Anti-Aircraft Command is the largest Command in the Army and is taking much of our resources in men and weapons. I should think it would be possible for a considerable number of the home base defences in England to be on a more static footing than at present.
Obviously in the field Army we want men trained to be mobile; but in this country, which will be the great fortress of Europe if ever we should be involved in war, we might organise a large part of the Anti-Aircraft Command on what I would call a Territorial basis. Men could give week-to-week service without having to go long distances from their homes, and in the event of an emergency they would have been trained together as a team; not merely for 15 days a year, as my right hon. Friend seemed to imply. They would be men who lived together and knew each other: who came from the same localities and manned the same guns in the same spots. No doubt this matter has received consideration by the War Department, and indeed I have mentioned it on more than one occasion.
I think I may safely say that I am now an old soldier, and I view with considerable dissatisfaction that sentence in the Memorandum of my right hon. Friend in which he says, under the heading of "Discipline," that the second largest crime in the Army is stealing. What the causes are I do not know, although I have my suspicions. I only know this— and this is going a long way back—that in the First World War we had a wonderful Regular Army where stealing from a comrade was considered to be one of the most grievous crimes and was punished accordingly. I should like to know a little more about this stealing,

and whether it is due to that pilfering habit which seemed to become so rife owing to the shortages during the last war and since. I do not know, but I think it ought to be stamped out, perhaps sometimes a little more ruthlessly than is the practice at the moment. Whatever we may say about this crime in civil life, in a community so closely knit as the Army it is something which, in my view, is far worse.

Brigadier Head: In the Army there are two offences, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, stealing and unlawful possession, and there is a difference between them. One is a very bad crime and the other, at one time, became almost a military sport. I am wondering whether we are over-emphasising the stealing, which to a large extent might be unlawful possession. Although that it is a bad thing, it is not so serious a crime in the Army as stealing.

Mr. Bellenger: I am merely taking up the sentence in the Memorandum of my right hon. Friend, where he specifically says, under the heading of "Discipline," that the second largest crime is stealing, not as one used to call it "winning," but stealing. If I understand English, I know what is the meaning of "stealing," whether it be in civilian life or in the Army.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the second crime is stealing, is the first murder?

Mr. Bellenger: No, the first is desertion and absence without leave. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can give the House any figures of the numbers of deserters, or whether for security reasons that is not possible, but I should like to know what is the figure.

Brigadier Rayner: As the right hon. Gentleman will admit—and I am now speaking as an old soldier—there is a difference between stealing and "scrounging."

Mr. Bellenger: I thought I had admitted that, but I am dealing only with stealing and not "winning" or "scrounging." or whatever it may be called.
I can assure my right hon. Friend that what I have had to say has not been in criticism, either of him or of the Service to which I belonged for a good portion


of my political and private life; but in common with other hon. Members I have the interests of that Service at heart. If I might relate my remarks to what my right hon. Friend has put into his Memorandum, I would say that they are introspective, in the same way as that Memorandum was produced by himself in his own Department.
Whatever the differences may be—and it is quite evident that there are differences between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on this side of the House—we must not forget that for the time being my right hon. Friend is the head of the Army. If our criticism is wild, or wide of the point, or personal, then, to a certain extent it is deflected from his head on to the Army itself. The Army is a very loyal Service as I myself have found. It is loyal to every Secretary of State, whatever his political opinion, so long as it is convinced that that Secretary of State has the interests of the Service at heart.
We are experiencing very difficult times. The times ahead are anything but bright. All I ask is that when we come to consider defence matters, whether they be within the realm of the Minister of Defence or in the Service Departments, we should consider them only from one point of view, namely, the best interests of our own country and of those Services which I am sure all hon. Members, whatever their political opinions, have at heart.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: There are a number of points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War which I should like to take up, but since there are many other hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate, I will confine myself to one topic, and that is tanks. I wish to ask the Government several questions on this subject. I listened with attention to the remarks made by the Secretary of State on this subject, but I must say that he really did not add anything at all to the information which had already been given to us previously.
He told us once again that we had the Centurion tank and that it is a very good tank. I think he might have told us a little more. Incidentally he said that the Centurion was a completely post-war

tank. Of course, the Centurion, as such, has been manufactured since the war, but he well knows that one of the great advantages of the Centurion is that it is not a new post-war design. On the contrary it has a long history of development behind it. No tank is a good tank unless its roots go back into the past. The Centurion has been evolved from the Cromwell and the Comet which were developed during the war. One of the most important components in any tank is the engine. The engine in the Centurion is the Rolls Royce Meteor engine de? veloped during the war for the Cromwell tank.
The Minister spoke about the reliability of the Centurion. Before putting the Cromwell tanks into service in Normandy, we laid down as a standard that on an average they had to be capable of running 3,000 miles without a major breakdown. I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that close attention is being paid to the question of mechanical reliability, and that the Centurion has done well in Korea.
The other important element in tank design is its fighting capacity. Here it is not a question of attaining a specified standard such as one can set for mechanical reliability. For it is not enough to have a good tank. What matters is to have a better tank than the enemy, and that depends on the power of your gun and the thickness of your armour. What matters to the crew in the tank is that their tank should be able to knock out the enemy tank at a range at which the enemy tank cannot knock them out.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us more information on this point. I should like to know at what range the gun in our Centurion can penetrate the frontal armour of the Russian Stalin tank, and at what range the Stalin tank can penetrate the Centurion? There should be no security grounds for refusing this information since I understand that at least one Centurion has fallen into the hands of the enemy in Korea. If that is so, they know the measurements of our armour and they are capable of examining our gun. Therefore, it ought to be possible to give these figures without giving any new information to the enemy.
One of the most important decisions in the designing of a tank is to settle the


relative priority to be given to the competing demands of gun and armour. It is all a question of weight. If it is decided to mount a bigger gun, of course it weighs more and its ammunition is bigger and heavier. Since there is a maximum weight which the chassis can carry, the extra weight of the gun has to be deducted from the weight available for armour. What is more, the bigger gun has a longer recoil inside the turret, which means that the turret must be enlarged. In order to cover the larger turret with armour, without increasing the total weight of the tank, the thickness of the armour has to be reduced. Alternatively you have to start all over again and build a bigger and heavier chassis capable of carrying more weight.
There is a limit beyond which we cannot usefully increase the weight and size of our tanks. In my opinion, we are approaching that limit. Apart from the question of expense—and I believe that a tank today costs about £30,000—the size and weight of tanks is ultimately governed by the strength of the bridges and the width of railway tracks, over which they have to travel. I do not think that there is very much margin left for further increases in weight or size. Nevertheless, we must clearly go on trying to increase the punching power of our tank guns. Improvement must continue. We cannot stand still. It appears to me that there are two ways of tackling this problem. One is to develop a recoil-Jess tank gun.
The other method is to increase the armour-piercing qualities of the ammunition, as we did in the war by the introduction of shaped charges and the super high velocity sabot ammunition. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for details about present developments, but I trust that these two lines of development are being pursued and that progress is being made.
I said that I thought that we were nearing the limit for the size and weight of tanks. That, of course, only applies to general purpose tanks. There is, I am sure, a real need for a small number of very heavily armoured assault tanks, which would be held in reserve and used for special operations. Their role would be to deal with strongly defended positions which were holding up the advance

of our troops. In the design of these tanks, armoured protection should have overriding priority. Speed is of no consequence, and even the gun is of secondary importance. In 1943, when I was at the Ministry of Supply, I ordered, as an experiment, the manufacture of two or three extra heavy tanks of this kind, so that we might gain experience. I gave this type the name of "Tortoise" so as to impress upon the designers that it was to be a slow-moving vehicle with a thick shell.
Can the Secretary of State tell us what the present policy is in regard to heavy tanks? As far as I know, the Army have not got any heavy assault tanks. Has the War Office decided that heavy tanks are not needed? If this has been decided, the right hon. Gentleman should, I feel, explain to us the reasons for that decision.
Now, let me say a word about future developments. In tank development one can never afford to be satisfied with what one has got. All the time one has to be striving to replace it with something better. What is a good tank in 1951 may be a bad tank in 1952, if, in the meanwhile, the enemy has produced a bigger, stronger and better model. There should at all times, be in existence at least three gnerations of tanks; first, an up-to-date tank in active service; secondly, a successor to that tank which should have reached the prototype stage and should be running at experimental establishments; and lastly, there should be a third generation, the grandchild, on the drawing board.
The Secretary of State spoke somewhat vaguely about a successor to the Centurion. When I questioned him as to whether this successor to the Centurion, about which he was speaking, was on the drawing board or whether the prototypes had already been manufactured, he refused to reply on security grounds. If a successor to the Centurion really exists and is running as a prototype, what possible harm can it do to tell the House and the world? The fact that the Secretary of State refuses to make a statement on this point can only give the impression, which I hope is false, that he is not able to say that we have a prototype, because we have not. The conclusion will, I am afraid, be drawn that we have nothing except on paper. If the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to say something


more encouraging, I hope he will not fail to do so tonight.
As regards tank production, we have been told that the programme has been doubled. As usual we have not been told what was the starting figure, and, in consequence, we are not in a position to judge of the adequacy of this doubled programme. But one thing is quite certain, and that is that the present tank production programme, even after it has been doubled, will have to be enormously expanded in the event of war. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State this question: Has he told his colleague the Minister of Supply in precise terms what expansion in tank production would be necessary in the event of an outbreak of war? Also, have the industries concerned been warned of what is likely to be required of them, so that they can begin to make their provisional plans?
In the last war, the production of Cromwell tanks at one stage was severely limited by the fact that we were unable to manufacture tank engines at a rate sufficient to match the output of the tanks themselves. The reason was that we had changed over to the new Rolls-Royce Meteor engines, and that it took some time before we could get the factories tooled up for the new design. Today, the Government are not faced with that difficulty. The engine of the Centurion is the same engine as that of the Cromwell tank of the last war, and a very fine engine it is, too. That means that the same machine tools as were used in the last war can be used again. This should assure us of a flying start and should save many months of delay in getting large-scale engine production going. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he has an assurance from the Minister of Supply that these vital machine tools for the production of the Meteor engine have not been dispersed or disposed of and that they would be immediately available in the event of need? This is a matter of great importance. I hope, therefore, that in his reply he will be able to give us this assurance.
In conclusion, let me say that my personal impression is that the Government are not giving to tank development and production the attention which this important question deserves; that having got a good tank in the Centurion, they are resting on their oars; that when the

Centurion becomes obsolescent in a year or so's time, the Government will not have a successor ready to take its place; that our present rate of production is totally inadequate, even for our present needs, and that no effective plans are being made to expand it in the event of war. My misgivings may, in certain respects, be unfounded; if so, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt correct me when he winds up the debate. In any case, I am sure that I am expressing the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House when I say that I hope that in future we shall be given much more information about tanks than we have received in the past.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I hope that the two ex-Cabinet Ministers may forgive me if I do not follow them in their argument, because it is only ex-Ministers who can ask questions, knowing precisely that they are the questions which they would never have dreamt of answering themselves. I will leave that as the private game of those who have tried and failed.
I should like to return to what I thought was the most arresting suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) when he proposed that we should consider forming the nucleus of a Home Guard. If I followed the speech of the Secretary of State aright, I think his most important remark was when he stressed that we had become in part a continental Power and not an island Power, and I believe it is logical to say that, if we have become, in a sense, tactically a part of Europe, then we must behave, in terms of our military organisation, as Europeans. Therefore, I think that in terms of what the Minister himself argued, this suggestion for a nucleus of the Home Guard is something which, however unpleasant it may be, should be seriously and objectively considered.

Mr. Churchill: In peace-time.

Mr. Crossman: Yes, now, in peacetime. On the other hand, if I may say so to the Minister, he seemed to me to cite only one half of the proposition. If we are now part of Europe, it does


not follow that Europe, including ourselves, is defensible. It is not; and that is why I have always been opposed to the concept of a European Army. I think it misleads us into the view that Europe is a strategical entity which can be defended on its own. It is a curious paradox that at the moment we become more closely a part of the Continent of Europe, we are more strategically united across the Atlantic, Without full-scale American help in peace-time, this part of the world called Western Europe cannot defend itself out of its own resources.
I often wonder whether in our discussions on this subject we are fully aware of the revolution in national sovereignty which is now taking place in the obscurity of committees of the Atlantic Pact. We are all now sacrificing sovereignty, and, if I may say so to the Government Front Bench, it would only be fair to the people of this country to let them know what sacrifices we are making, instead of there appearing, almost by a mistake through a leak, in a Danish newspaper sensational news about one naval appointment in the new pooled command.
I do not think that the people of this country are aware that national sovereignty as we knew it in the old days is being destroyed by the military integration of the Atlantic Pact. Least of all are they aware that in the passing of national sovereignty, the Americans are making at least as big a sacrifice as we are. I think it is worth stressing that, as late as 1940, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was able to decide not to throw the Metropolitan Air Force into the Battle of France. I believe that was a correct decision, even though it meant the tragic fact that we accepted the defeat and occupation of France in order to liberate it later.

Mr. Churchill: It would have happened anyway.

Mr. Grossman: Yes, it would have happened anyway, but we had to make the decision, and I would point out that there was no integrated command at that time to order us to do otherwise.
For those who are upset by our British sacrifice of sovereignty, it is worth observing that in modern war the temptation to cut losses would today be very great on

the other side of the Atlantic. Integration now is all in our favour. We need it as France needed it in 1940. We want to be sure that there is no question of pulling out and defending only the other side of the Atlantic. In demanding that there should be six American divisions in Europe, we are fundamentally changing the American Constitution. We are making it impossible for Congress any more to have the clear-cut decision of peace and war. That is a convulsion in their national life. I feel that if we do not explain these facts about the U.S.A. clearly to our people, they may not be able to accept the fact that the transformation in our own sovereignty has got to come.
May I now come to another point? The right hon. Gentleman asked for six British divisions in Europe. I was surprised at that demand. I think I am right in saying that we should have five divisions in the course of time. Four is what we are planning now, and we can hope for five. But to ask for six at a moment when the Middle East is almost entirely undefended, is to accept the illusion that the free world is in danger of being defeated only in Western Europe and the Far East. That is to neglect what may be a most vital area.
I have been surprised at the absence of any mention of the Middle East in the debate so far, especially when I recall the murder which took place in Teheran only yesterday. That might well be the Serajevo of the third world war, because there is so much uncertainty and open temptation to the aggressor in Persia. That is why I think it is our special British responsibility not to be over-persuaded by the French and the Americans into sending everything to Europe. We must persuade our friends that our responsibilities in the Middle East have at least an equal priority with Europe. Unless we do that, we are not being true Allies.
I happened to be out there during this Christmas, and I must say that I was profoundly depressed by the fact that at the present moment, if a war happened, the Russian Army could advance virtually without opposition as far as the Suez Canal through Persia and Iraq. I cannot see that in Iraq, Lybia, Syria, or in any other so-called Arab democracy, there would be any serious resistance at all.


There are only three nations which would resist—Turkey, Israel and Jordan.

Mr. Churchill: Would one division make any difference?

Mr. Crossman: If I may complete the argument, I think it is important to realise that of the three States ready to resist, the Israelis and the Jordanians are now at loggerheads with one another, and would be unable to give us any assistance as they are defending themselves against each other. Indeed when I asked the Israeli the question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me, they said, "What is the good of going into a defensive alliance with you British when there is nothing to go in with? You have first to build the nucleus of a Middle Eastern and decide the base it is going to have." So long as we have not decided whether the base is to be in Libya, in Jordan or in Egypt, I cannot see that we can create any serious defence of the Middle East. It is a subject on which I should like more information from the Government.
Now for the question of colonial armies mentioned by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) who opened for the Opposition. I think there is an inclination on the other side of the House to regard colonial armies as a cheap and easy way of increasing the number of troops available for the defence of ourselves. It is a grave mistake to believe that we can use colonial troops in this way. If there are to be colonial armies, they must be armies of people defending their own liberties and their own countries, and they must be persuaded that any common strategy with us is a strategy which defends them at least as much as it defends us.
I agree that the development of colonial armies is of first rate importance; but not so much for the purpose of assisting ourselves, but because I am convinced that in the development of the people in a backward State towards democracy, the formation of an army is one of the most important stages of national emancipation. I am impressed for instance by the fact that in contrast with all the Arab States to which we granted the blessings of "political democracy," only Jordan shows any real

stability or any ability to administer itself. I believe that is because for 25 years Englishmen have developed there a volunteer army consisting, not of a horde of conscript destitute peasants, but of 12,000 Arabs who have been trained to be honest and trained to be the skeleton of a modern democratic State. I believe that if we are to have democracy in the Gold Coast or in the Middle East, one essential element is the encouragement of those people to form their own armies, and to fight for their own liberties.
I sometimes wonder whether, instead of having all the colonial students we see in London, who so quickly get a feeling of colour prejudice every time a lodging-house keeper insults them, and who get some very strange ideas at the universities they attend, it would not be more useful if we were to train many more of them here as officers, not in our army, but in the new armies of their own countries, which they could feel to be their very own. If that is the sort of colonial army the House wants, then I think that on this side we could be 100 per cent. in favour of it.
But if the idea is, because we are short of manpower here, that we should borrow a few blacks or a few yellows, that is not going to work, because, as we know, such armies melt away in the stress of war. The "colonial" army worth having is the Burmese Army. We let Burma leave the Commonwealth and make its own mistake. The Burmese Army therefore is an army which has fought for itself and regained its country from Communist control. Whereas colonial armies formed only to fight for us will collapse every time they come up against Communism.
I turn now to one last subject about which I want to ask questions of the Minister, and that is political warfare. We have hardly had it mentioned, and I doubt whether it would be mentioned even if we had a normal Defence debate. I happen to have spent all the last war in working on that subject. It is true, of course, that most soldiers regard political warfare as a trick or a substitute that one tries when everything else has failed. There were occasions in the last war when, soldiers or sailors having got into a desperate jam and every ordinary method having failed, they would say, "let us try those queer people, the 'political warfare boys,' and see if they can do anything


about it." What a time to call upon our service!
Yet as the Minister made clear in his speech, political warfare is an important part of every modern strategy whether designed to win or to prevent a war. It means the recognition of the mass participation of every man, woman and child in modern total war, the recognition, therefore, of the overwhelming importance of civilian morale, whether on the enemy side or on our own side. We see that finally epitomised in the ability of the guerillas to stand up to the most powerful totalitarian State on one condition—that the majority of the population acquiesce in their being in revolt. They do not have to be enthusiastic, it is enough that they acquiesce. In Palestine the Irgunites had only an army of a few hundred terrorists. We had 10,000 men there and we could never suppress them. That was because the population acquiesced and were willing to harbour them and not to denounce them.
The rôle played by civilian morale is, therefore, of decisive importance in modern war. In dealing with it, we made every possible mistake in the last war, but I think we learned two lessons. The first is that one cannot conduct political warfare unless the control is entirely integrated. One cannot have separate British political warfare, American political warfare and French political warfare. One must have a common policy. Of course each will still have its national flavour and it is very important to keep that, but there must be integrated control and planning of policy. If, taking an extreme case, American propaganda, as it often does, gives the peoples of the Baltic the impression that liberation is coming tomorrow, and we give them the impression it certainly is not coming, that does not give confidence to the people of the Baltic States. One can have individual national propaganda if one likes, but a united and integrated policy at the top is absolutely essential.
The second thing we discovered is that when you are dealing with an area of military operations, whether it is a matter of civilians in places occupied by our men or of civilians behind the enemy lines, all political warfare must be in the hands of the military. The Foreign Office and the diplomats have no understanding

of this job whatsoever; and thank God they do not, because they would be very bad diplomatists if they did. It has nothing to do with their job.
Soldiers, on the other hand, understand this matter very well. They want to shorten the war and reduce casualties and use every possible expedient to induce the other side to give way without being killed. It is not the soldiers who believe that their job is to kill all the enemy. It is the politicians who believe that. On the whole, the soldiers believe in getting a war over without fighting at all. That is their ideal as is shown, for instance, in papers now coming out about the German military staff's advice to Hitler in the 1930's. It is always the soldiers who say to the politicians, Do not go to war, because we cannot be sure of winning. "This is why the soldiers understand the need of political warfare to deal with morale on their own side and with morale on the enemy side as well.
I was glad to hear from the Secretary of State for War that we have just started political warfare in Malaya. I should like to know how active this political warfare is and whether, for instance, the prisoners of war we take are indoctrinated, trained and sent back as agents. Without this political warfare, one can have all the police forces in the world and one will still never get rid of the guerillas. One can succeed only if one solves the economic and social problem and one has the instruments to put one's policy over to the civilians.
In Korea every mistake possible has been made in political warfare. I presume our aim was to unify and liberate Korea. But if one looks at the facts, the aim seems to have been to wipe out as many civilians as possible. I cannot help asking whether if the political warfare in that campaign had ever been considered, the U.N. Command would have tolerated the type of strategic bombing that took place over large areas and the killing of literally hundreds of thousands of civilians by white men, suspected anyway of imperialism, would all that have been undertaken so ruthlessly and with such devastating effects on the Asiatic attitude to the United Nations Organisation, if anyone had studied the lessons of the last war. If ever there was a place where every rule of political warfare was broken it was in Korea.
There is a story, which may be a myth, that when hundreds of thousands of civilians streamed south, the Americans believed they streamed south because of fear and hatred of Communism. Of course they did not stream south because of fear of Communism. They streamed south because of fear of American bombing. We had in Korea a total destruction of civilian life carried out in defiance of any regard for the objective we had there. During the last war there was the same thing in Germany. We prolonged the last war for a whole year by adopting that sort of attitude in Germany. It is profoundly depressing to find that the lessons we could have learned from the stupidity of unconditional surrender and the terrible waste and slaughter of strategic bombing in Germany, such as the deliberate killing of refugees in Dresden, have not been learned. Or is that too pessimistic? Perhaps we should note the contrast between Korea and Malaya. Perhaps the truth is that the British have learned a great deal whereas an American general I must not mention has learnt nothing at all. If so, this is an encouraging contrast from our British point of view.
I conclude with this thought. As the Secretary of State said, there are three struggles going on—an economic struggle, a political struggle, and, in a few parts of the world, a military struggle. One can win the economic and political struggle without ever wielding the military instrument, provided that that instrument is strong enough to deter an aggressor. But I claim that one cannot win a military struggle, even in minor campaigns, unless one understands the political and economic struggle and one co-ordinates the military struggle throughout with the other two.
There should have been a rehabilitation policy behind the lines in Korea. There we should have been showing what we would do for the Koreans if they accepted U.N. control. The fact is that today a purely military campaign is utterly disastrous to democracy. The men who believe one can win a modern war by purely military means without including the political and social factors are the men who make our defeat possible. The greatest possible contribution this country can make in the struggle of the free peoples is to put it into the minds of our American Allies that political war-

fare and economic warfare are the offensive weapons of democracy, whereas military warfare must remain a defensive weapon. We should use the military method only in the last resort, and even in those areas where there is war we must be prepared to have a policy designed to make the citizens of that area and the soldiers alike feel that in being occupied by our Armies they are occupied by people genuinely bringing them the chance of freedom, security and peace.

7.30 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I shall not endeavour to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) on the Korean campaign, if only because it appears to have very little relevance to the Army Estimates.

Mr. Crossman: Not at all.

Sir G. Jeffreys: We are asked to vote this year £480 million as compared with £299 million last year. That is a very large increase, and I can only express the hope that this time we shall get more value for our money, which certainly has not been the case in the last two or three years.
Again, I would stress that we are getting far too little information about the Army, about its strength, its distribution, its organisation and its readiness for war. We ought to be told at least as much as we were told in the pre-war years, all of which is certain to be known by the foreign intelligence services. We have not got even the monthly Army List. That, at least, used to tell us something about the Army, about its stations and distribution. The Memorandum does give us some particulars, although all too few regarding the present day Army.
The Minister of Defence has told us that on 1st April there will be in the Army some 388,000 men, and these he divides into 220,000 "fighting elements" and 168,000 "non-fighting elements." I asked the Secretary of State a Question on this subject last week, and he replied that it would not be in the public interest to give a numerical analysis of these 168,000 men. He went on to say that they were employed
on such duties as the supply, service and maintenance of fighting troops, including medical, dental, educational and pay duties, the manning of base organisations at home and overseas, and on training."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February. 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1914.]


To have anything like 168,000 non-fighting elements, compared with 220,000 fighting elements, is an extravagance we certainly cannot afford. There ought to be a very serious combing out of these non-fighting elements.
We are told, on training and manœuvres, that the new divisions will be exercised in higher training in the autumn. We should like to know whether these divisions will be divisions in anything other than name, or will they be skeleton divisions with possibly inadequate and obsolescent equipment? We should have some assurances on that. I am sure the House is glad to know that there will be co-operation by the occupying forces of our Allies in the manœuvres of the British Army of the Rhine.
I was very glad to see that there are to be "adjustments in the training organisation," and that these adjustments involve the re-formation of something in the way of recruit training centres, which were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I am certain that this is a very sound reversion to former practice. Whether they are to be regimental depots or group depots, it is a very necessary reform in either case to dissociate recruit training from the training of higher units.
I should like also to see the cessation of indiscriminate cross-posting of personnel between different regiments—it is destructive of the regimental spirit—and some of the battalions which have been placed in what is euphemistically called "suspended animation," in other words, disbanded, ought to be re-raised.
The Memorandum states in paragraph 16:
The regular content of the active Army is still below what is necessary to support efficient forces of the size we are now required, by our international commitments, to maintain.
Pay has quite rightly been greatly improved, which is something that has been long recommended from this side of the House, and there has been a corresponding improvement in recruiting. To get still better results, I suggest something in the way of improved amenities, or possibly privileges, for the soldiers are required. For instance, soldiers should be given a better and smarter dress. The

soldier is now the only man in the United Kingdom who has no best suit. He ought to have a best suit, and the sooner he gets it the better. I suggest that additional travel warrants for leave in the United Kingdom might well be issued, an expenditure which could be afforded.
I am sure we all welcome the news that the construction of further married quarters is being pushed on, but I again urge that the arrangements for re-settlement in civil life should include a guarantee of Government employment for Regular soldiers of good character when they finish their time. Men with no less than a "very good" character should be able to count Army service towards pensions in services such as the police and the Post Office.
The Secretary of State says that he is not satisfied with the Regular officer position. Again, I suggest that the conditions of service might be further improved. For instance, free travel warrants for leave in the United Kingdom—they do not get much leave these days—might well be allowed, and some form of better and smarter dress is also required for officers as well as for other ranks. The iniquitous system of taxing allowances should also be abolished. An officer who is housed in barracks does not have to pay any tax on his quarters, but if he has to find quarters for himself when the War Office cannot find them for him and he gets an allowance to pay for quarters, although the allowance may be quite adequate for the purpose before the deduction of tax, he very often finds that it is quite inadequate for the purpose after the tax deduction has been made. That is a very sore point with officers. We cannot expect to have a contented body of officers so long as injustices of that sort are perpetrated upon them.
Another point of grievance is pensions and retired pay. I again draw attention to the grievances of those officers, mostly of the First World War, who retired under the 1919 Royal Warrant. That Royal Warrant laid down that pensions would rise or fall according to the rise or fall in the cost of living. They have fallen all right, and then been stabilised; they have never risen to correspond with the very high rise in the cost of living. That is another grievance, and that is what is influencing a great many older officers


when their sons or young friends talk to them about their prospects in the Army. When they tell them this is the sort of treatment they may get, many of them are put off.
As to staff officers, are not the staffs of the War Office and Commands unduly swollen as compared with pre-war times? Are these great increases really necessary? Could not a great many of these staff officers be employed with advantage in training and commanding troops? Many of our young soldiers badly need a sufficiency of efficient instructors. The combing out of administrative non-combatant and semi-combatant staffs and personnel is not only desirable but long overdue. Only those necessary to ensure fighting efficiency should be retained, and I include in those some to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred—the older officers, who might be perfectly well employed on training duties and who would be very useful indeed in that capacity.
Then there is the question of equipment. I will not say anything about tanks, because that subject has been so ably dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). Korea has shown the importance of infantry, but they must be up to date in training and in equipment. I think it is obvious that our troops in Korea have been extremely well trained, or, at any rate, the lines on which they were trained were right.
I have had it urged upon me by very practical soldiers that the greatest requirement now is a self-propelled infantry gun which should be an integral part of brigades, or, better still, of battalions, and which should possess adequate protection for the gun's crew. I am told that the 17-pounder, although a powerful and excellent gun in its way, has two very serious defects. One is an excessive flash which draws fire upon it at once and frequently means that it fires very few rounds before it is knocked out, and the other is that it has inadequate protection for the gun's crew. Mortars are, of course, essential but I am told that they might with advantage be heavier in their projectiles and that they might be more numerous than they are now.
I believe that a better machine gun than our old friend the Vickers is re-

quired. I am far from saying that the Vickers is a bad gun. It is a magnificent gun, but it is big and heavy, and italso suffers from the disadvantage that there are a great many stoppages which have to be learned very thoroughly. I am told that there is a gun called the "Beza" and another gun called the Browning which might be better, lighter and simpler than the Vickers.
I am glad to hear that excessive transport has been reduced. I have no doubt that we have too much of it, and there was certainly need for a 20 per cent. reduction. The Army's numbers are to be greatly increased in this and the following years but, as I have been saying for some time, numbers alone do not win wars, and still less when they include a great many non-combatants. What we must have is large numbers of trained disciplined men organised in operational units and formations, with adequate and up-to-date equipment and weapons, and with adequate reserves behind them. I hope, at any rate, that we are on the way, though I quite realise it cannot all be done at once, to getting something like those reserves. But I wonder about the organisation. The proper organisation of the Army is one of the Government's earliest tasks.
There is another matter of importance. Our forces must be properly balanced; that is to say, there must be a correct proportion of the different arms of the Service and of the necessary supply and maintenance services, and there must be adequate air co-operation and support of the troops. I doubt whether in the Army as a whole there is actually such a balance of arms and of ancillary services. Certainly it is not so in Korea, where we now have two separate brigades. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question about this, and he gave me some particulars from which I gathered that the 27th Brigade, consisting of two British battalions and one Australian battalion, has no supporting arms or even supply and maintenance services of its own, and is dependent for those on the Americans, while the 29th Brigade is self-contained; but the two brigades are not organised in one balanced formation, and they are not, as they ought to be, under one commander with his own staff.
It is, in fact, a thoroughly unsound state of affairs from the point of view of organisation, and the fact that the 27th Brigade was formed and sent out in a hurry is no reason why it should not long since have been properly organised and included with the 29th Brigade in a British formation with its own ancillary troops and services. The fact that, in spite of defects of organisation, British troops have fought splendidly does not alter the fact that there were these defects in organisation.
Unfortunately, this lack of organisation is, I believe, typical of present-day conditions in the Army. In this country we have a mass of partially-trained and ill-organised men of whom certainly at present the best use is not being made. We hope that the schemes which the Secretary of State is going to produce will lead to a different state of affairs, but at present we have not got organised and properly trained forces.
I would again suggest, with reference to our responsibilities, particularly in the Middle East and Far East, the formation of African divisions. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman—I hope I understood correctly—that it is proposed to form Colonial divisions. Am I wrong?

Mr. Strachey: I do not quite understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said, amongst his other remarks, that he had favourably considered the formation of colonial troops. Am I wrong?

Mr. Strachey: In my speech today?

Sir G. Jeffreys: Yes.

Mr. Strachey: No, I did not refer to that.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I would suggest the formation of African divisions. I think we ought to form colonial divisions to take the place, to some extent, at any rate, of the Indian Army. The loss of the Indian Army is a tremendous loss to us. I suppose it was cheerfully given away without any thought of the difference it would make to our responsibilities in the Far and Middle East. We

should be in a very different position today if we had the Indian Army. Now African troops should be raised. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that they did admirable service in the last war, especially in Burma, and the raising of three or four divisions would add greatly to our potential strength.
I appreciate that there would be some difficulties, as, for instance, a deficiency of Africans with sufficient education and intelligence to provide the technical and other skilled personnel required. I suggest, however, that these deficiencies could be made up from home resources, or perhaps we could go one step further and raise a foreign legion, possibly from among Poles and others who have fought for us, and possibly even by a resuscitation of the old King's German Legion in our own Army.
So far as the first and most important part of our Army is concerned, which is to take the lead in Western European defence, I think it is necessary that we should have six divisions, if possible, ready to take the field without delay, organised, balanced and well-equipped. We know that negotiations have been going on and that the Commander-in-Chief has been appointed, but how far has the organisation of our own and our allies' contingents proceeded? Have plans of action been agreed? What is the state of readiness for the field of our own and the combined Forces?
The second, and also very important, task of the Army is, as I have said, the maintenance and strengthening of our positions in the Middle and Far East. As I have said before, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has said, I cannot stress too much the desirability of some measure of standardisation of arms and equipment, thus facilitating replacement and ammunition supply. I remember that some time ago the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that this matter was under consideration and that we were aiming at such a standardisation. I hope that the importance of it, when troops of different nations have to work together, will be fully appreciated.
I know it is difficult—I am well aware of the difficulties—but we should aim at this standardisation. Not only should we try to get some standardisation of arms


and equipment but also some standardisation in the composition of units and formations. What I mean is that a battalion or a brigade or a division, or whatever it may be, should mean the same thing in different Armies which have to work together and, if possible, some standardisation in or at least assimilation of staff methods is also de-siderable. For instance, some of the staff methods of the French, are very different from our staff methods. I am one of the very few remaining who commanded a considerable British Force in a French Army in the First World War, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these differences made themselves felt. They were real and practical difficulties. Although we got on very well with the French, those difficulties confronted us.
Another suggestion which I think is worthy of consideration is the desirability of some assimilation of the ranks held by opposite numbers in different Armies. Again, at the time of which I was speaking, I became aware—althought I did not realise it when I first went there—that the French very much resented the fact that the commander of every British unit or formation was in every case senior to his opposite number in the French Army —that is, if he was anything less than a divisional commander. We gave temporary rank to subalterns commanding companies; the French did not. We gave temporary rank to the commanders of battalions and batteries; the French did not. Our staff officers were always a peg higher than the corresponding French staff officers.
It sounds a small thing, but when great Armies have to work together and when Armies are composed of men from different nations who are inclined to look at things from their own particular point of view, then it becomes a difficult matter when every commander or staff officer is of a different rank from that of his opposite number. I hope some consideration will be given to that point. I do not doubt that one of the reasons we have a great many temporary ranks in the British Army is in order to give higher pay to a certain number of officers who would not otherwise receive it, and it may be difficult to overcome that problem. It may not be so difficult now, however, in view of the fact that rates of pay have been raised.
I conclude by adding my small voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington and others in urging that at least a cadre of the Home Guard should be formed. Again, I have some personal experience in this connection. I was what was called the county organiser in a large county which had a very large number of battalions—I forget the exact number—and I was suddenly told one day, "Go ahead and raise a Home Guard." I motored many miles going to see people I knew and people I did not know and people of whom I knew, begging them to take some part; but it was a very scratch procedure. I am sure that the same thing was taking place in every county and every big town and the amazing thing is that anything grew out of it at all. The fact is that we cannot possibly raise an efficient force in a short time that way.
If the Home Guard is needed, it is likely that it will be needed at short notice. If we cannot raise the Home Guard itself, let us at any rate form the cadre and have battalion commanders appointed, adjutants appointed, company commanders appointed, and the districts in which the units will be based settled beforehand. I believe that would make a very great difference to the efficiency of the Home Guard if and when it has to be raised.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton: Obviously I cannot pursue the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) in the rather technical aspect of his speech as I am very much of a layman. It is true that I spent five years in the Army, but I was under no illusion as to my soldiering capacity. When the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was speaking about the number of rifles available, it brought back to my mind the fact that as long after the outbreak of war as early 1942, I was a trainee at Skegness with a piece of wood shaped as a rifle because we had no rifles. I sincerely hope that, in the event of another war, we shall not again be in those dire straits.
I should like to bring out one point concerning colonial troops which I think is rather important. If we are to raise black colonial troops and to use them, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that


he should make sure that there is no differentiation between the military code of law applied to black troops and that applied to white troops. I understand that in the last war there were different codes of law and that the code of law applied to black troops was very much more severe in its punishments than those applied under King's Regulations to white troops. For instance, I understand that the officer commanding had the power to imprison summarily a black soldier for 40 days.
That is not good enough, particularly in these days when we claim—and I think rightly claim—to be fighting a war of ideas, our ideas being based on equality of race, colour and creed. It is important that as an integral part of that war of ideas we should get rid of the differentiation between the treatment of black troops and the treatment of white troops, especially when they are fighting side by side.
I was very glad indeed that the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield stressed the provision of increased and improved amenities for the individual soldier. I do not think he has consistently pursued that line over the years, but I will come back to that in a moment. He also stressed the need for better conditions for officers. He did not specifically mention pay, but I have taken the trouble to refer to Vote 1, for pay. It is rather interesting that, so far as I know—and I have missed only one speech in the debate—no reference has been made in the speeches so far to pay. In Vote 1 I find, looking at the very highest grade of pay and then at the very lowest, that a field-marshal who is married draws £4,185, and that even a second lieutenant, the lowest grade of officer, if married gets £718.

Brigadier Head: Did the hon. Gentleman say £718?

Mr. Hamilton: According to the statistics which are in the Estimates a second lieutenant married gets £718. I should be out of order, probably, if I compared that with the pay of my own profession, the school-teaching profession.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No, my hon. Friend would not.

Mr. Hamilton: I think in this direction I should be. That is the officers' scale

from the maximum of the field-marshal, £4,185, to the second lieutenant, £718.

Sir G. Jeffreys: May I interrupt for one moment? The hon. Gentleman speaks of a second lieutenant who is married getting £718. I suppose that he realises that not one second lieutenant in 500 is married?

Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks up the salary scale for an unmarried second lieutenant he will find that it is even better than the scale for the married second lieutenant.

Brigadier Head: No.

Mr. Hamilton: In my opinion it is.

Brigadier Head: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I can see he is now going to make comparisons with officers' pay. To be very fair and realistic would the hon. Gentleman look at the warrant officers' pay compared with a second lieutenant's pay? He will find the difference very small.

Mr. Hamilton: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have looked at the figures, and I have been astounded by the difference between the higher and the lower paid in the Army.

Brigadier Head: And the Coal Board.

Mr. Hamilton: I should be out of order if I referred to the Coal Board. Two wrongs, anyhow, do not make a right.

Brigadier Head: And the Steel Corporation.

Mr. Dodds: And Marks and Spencer.

Mr. Hamilton: I think these interruptions indicate a slight nervousness on the part of hon. Members opposite. If we look at the scales we find a private gets 7s. a day, £128 a year. That means that at one end of the scale we get well over £4,000 and at the other end £128. If we take the intermediate scales we get a colonel with £1,776 minimum yearly; a captain with £928 as a minimum yearly; a regular private £128; and certain National Service men 4s. a day or £73 a year. So that we get £4,185 at one end and £73 at the other.

Sir G. Jeffreys: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman only a moment? It is a perfectly friendly interruption. I trust


that the hon. Gentleman realises that there are very few field-marshals, and that in the case of a field-marshal it probably means 40 years' service and many campaigns; while a private soldier on the lowest grade of pay has probably less than six months' service.

Mr. Hamilton: I agree. I am also aware, of course—I just make this observation in passing—that there are miners with 50 years' and 60 years' service whose differential is not quite at that rate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And a very dangerous profession.

Mr. Hamilton: We have a differential here in the ratio of nearly 60 to one— 60 at the highest and one at the lowest— and that is hardly a shining example of "fair shares for all," particularly in a nationalised industry.

Mr. H. A. Price: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the case of the Government, the ratio is about 125 to one?

Mr. Hamilton: Again my answer is that two wrongs cannot make a right. Let us remedy them both. In the last few years, certainly since I have been in the House in the last 12 months, the Tory Party—probably quite rightly: it is certainly within their right as an Opposition —have urged economy in the public expenditure. They say, quite rightly, that taxation is extremely heavy. We say that it will get heavier, and we do not apologise for that. We also believe —and we are frequently told this—that the patriotism of every one of us in this House and outside will be put severely to the test, particularly when this armament programme gets under way.
As yet we have had no clear indication from the party opposite where they would make the cuts in public expenditure. Well, I am making a suggestion. I am suggesting that we cut the pay of Army officers, especially in the higher ranks, and give it to the privates and to the National Service men in the lowest grades.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: What economy would that be?

Mr. Hamilton: All right. We need not give it all to the privates. Give the difference between the privates' and the

officers' pay in the form of food subsidies to the ordinary folk.

Major Legge-Bonrke: How much per head?

Brigadier Head: Is this policy a financial corollary of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in the House some time ago that the officers for the Army should be recruited from Dartmoor?

Mr. Hamilton: That observation seemed perfectly relevant. I believe that the initiative displayed by the inmates of Dartmoor would be an admirable quality in Army officers at the present day.
However, let us move away from that controversial sphere. I think it is true to say that we are all, irrespective of party, interested in the overall defence of the country. Opinions may differ— opinions do differ—in this House and outside it on how best to achieve maximum proficiency in defence. We have at one extreme the pacifists—the idealistic pacifists, if hon. Members like—and at the other extreme what I would call the negative militarists; and between these we have opinion in the intermediate grades.
I think it is also right to say—I do not think this will be controversial—that most of us believe that, in the present international situation, we have to build up our military Forces, and that those Forces must be effective. It has been stressed earlier today that it is not simply a numerical question—a question of looking at the actual number of bodies in the Army, and of judging proficiency simply by whether that figure is high or small. The effectiveness of our Army— indeed, of any army—is not measured alone by the number of men. It is not measured alone by the amount of equipment that they have. It is not measured alone by the amount of money we spend on it. It is not measured alone by the industrial capacity that is behind it. The strength of any army is dependent upon the moral fibre of the individual soldier. It is not really the physical strength of the soldier that is important. I believe that strength above the neck is what is most needed in today's citizen Army.
In the Estimates I see there is provision for education in the Forces of something like £2½ million. That is not very much. In fact, it is only half of one per cent. of the total expenditure, and it has


been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield, not in this debate but in a previous one, that even that should be cut. Incidentally, it is a lower figure than last year's. His suggestion was that education in the Army was an unnecessary frill. I notice that he himself was educated at Eton and Sandhurst, but the kind of education he got he wants to deny to the private soldier.
This 19th century attitude was well expressed by Tennyson when he wrote "Their's not to reason why." That kind of attitude is dead today, except where it remains in the minds of some hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite. Even so long ago as 1892 an infantry drill manual laid it down that a private soldier should be taught to think and, subject to accepted principles, to act for himself. I do not think that anybody, whether a military man or a layman, would deny the value of education in the maintenance of the morale of our troops, in keeping the soldier's mind alert, and in fostering that individual initiative which is the essence of any good soldier.
Intelligent strength above the neck is the soldier's most important equipment in modern warfare. Any history of the Army shows that as educational standards and facilities within the Army have improved so has the type of recruit improved. We shall only get the right type of recruit when we narrow the gap or eliminate the difference between civilian life and Army life. The civilian looks on Army life as something vastly different and diametrically opposed to everything he has experienced in civilian life, and feels that a deep and wide gulf exists between the two. I believe that we shall not get the right kind of recruit unless we narrow that gulf and make it less deep.
We shall not get the right type simply by increasing the pay. Indeed, I would even suggest the contrary, that we might get the wrong type of recruit simply by increasing the pay. So far as we can humanise the Army organisation, then we shall get the recruits. From my own experience in the 1939–1945 war, I would say that the more intelligent the man is the more he revolts against the petty restrictions and regulations which make life for him so unbearable. Here we have a situation where educational standards both inside and outside the Army have improved, and, therefore, we shall get

more and more irritation from the average soldier over these petty regulations and restrictions. I found that the blanco fiend in the last war was an absolute nitwit, and the man who revolted against the blanco fiend and the polishing of brasses, was the man who generally was the more intellectual.
There is one further point I should like to make in connection with Army education. It is important that the soldier, particularly in foreign parts and if he is engaged in active warfare, should first know why he is in the Army at all, and, secondly, why he is fighting. I dare say most hon. Members read in the American Press in the last week or so of an American corporal fighting in Korea, who wrote home to his father asking what it was all about. The father did not know what it was about either, and so he sent the letter to Mr. Acheson and Mr. Acheson took it upon himself to write a letter of explanation to the father requesting him to send it to his boy.
That is extremely relevant, because it must be clear to a man why he is in the Army and what he is fighting for. He is not a good soldier if he is in ignorance of what is being done. After some of the speeches recently made in this House and some of the opinions expressed outside, I am not surprised if some of our men in Korea do not understand why they are there and what they are fighting for. No doubt they are rather confused as to what they are fighting for out there, but that ultimately is a reflection on the education they received before they went into the Forces and the education they are receiving in the Forces.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman saw quite recently the reports published in the newspapers of the large number of practically illiterate recruits, the result of the present educational system? Is that the sort of education that is wanted?

Mr. Hamilton: They are the products of the educational system fostered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. These are lads of 18 and 19, and if we subtract four or five years from their age it brings us back to 1945. The Labour Party was not in power in 1945.
There are some people in the educational sphere who believe that the Army organisation is incompatible with a genuine education. They maintain that


education flourishes only when there is freedom of thought and speech; that it cannot survive in a highly disciplined authoritarian organisation such as the Army; and that education there is a misnomer of anything which survives within the type of military organisation with which we are familiar. My own experience refutes that. In the latter part of the 1939–45 war I was an education officer.

Mr. Vane: We guessed that.

Mr. Hamilton: What hon. Gentlemen opposite say does not deter me very much, because this is a rather important point which I am developing, and if the negative militarists on the other side of the House choose to murmur and giggle it shows their own intellectual limitations.
My own experience of the average soldier in the Army was that he was anxious for education in its broadest aspect and was particularly anxious to study civics and the whole idea of citizenship. Certainly at Mount Carmel Formation College, Haifa, we got a splendid type of young man and young woman anxious to study economics, history, psychology and all the other subjects which go to make a responsible citizen. But at unit level, the whole idea of Army education depends to an enormous extent on the enthusiasm and broad-mindedness or otherwise of the C.O. I believe that, generally speaking, in the modern Army the blimps have disappeared—they are appearing on the benches opposite—and that the majority of the C.O.s are today desirous of giving the private a knowledge of current affairs and an insight into citizenship and civics generally.
But even in the last war we had regrettable instances of C.O.s trying to suppress a genuine expression of opinion. I have an example here in which an Education Corps sergeant was severely reprimanded by his C.O. because he said at a lecture on intelligence tests that he thought that the use of intelligence tests in civilian life had shown that there exists a very imperfect co-relation between the distribution of ability and the distribution of educational opportunity, and the C.O. took him to task for expounding sheer Socialism. That kind of attempt to suppress all political opinions whether right, left or centre is quite contrary to all the

concepts of the war of ideas which we are fighting for, or alleged to be fighting for, today.
There is one other point which I want to make. Still on this question of education there is the question of compulsion to be considered. Those of us who were in the Army, either as privates or as officers during and after the war, know that quite often the men were compelled to go to A.B.C.A. lectures or "British Way and Purpose" lectures. Most of us have heard the story of the party who were being prepared for a lecture on Keats, and the sergeant said to them, "I don't suppose one of you would know what a Keat was."

Mr. Grimond: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for education in the Army which we are forming today, but I am anxious that he should not leave any false impression. I am sure that he will agree that the converse of what he is saying is not true. The Nazis produced an exceedingly efficient Army without any of the kind of liberal education which he and I like. Although I agree with him that education is necessary, I hope that he will not give the impression that education is all, and that if one is not educated, he cannot fight.

Mr. Hamilton: I am not attempting to convey that impression. The impression which I am attempting to convey is that the education and welfare of the individual soldier equip him mentally, so that, in that respect at any rate, he is superior to his counterpart in the Communist armies or in the Nazis armies of the last war.

Mr. Wigg: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that any Army that is successful has to depart from the tradition of choosing its officers on the basis of their father's wealth.

Mr. Hamilton: That is another matter on which I do not want to be tempted to speak. I want to say in conclusion that today, as has already been stressed, we are fighting for what we believe is a way of life, and if the ideas basic to that way of life are not seen by the individual soldier within the organisation of the Army, then he is not going to fight for them with the same efficiency and the same enthusiasm as he would otherwise do.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: The suggestion which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) made earlier in his speech, that the pay of Army officers should be reduced and economies made thereby, contrasted rather sadly with the anxiety expressed by the Secretary of State for War earlier about the difficulty of recruiting officers for the Army cadres that we want to build up. I do not think that I need say more than that about the hon. Member's remarks.
As I understand it, the problem which we have to discuss today is whether we are getting value for the money which we are asked to spend. Value in these matters is a relative consideration. A six-foot leap may be a good leap as leaps go, but if one is being chased by a bull and has to jump over a ten-foot wall, it is not good enough. What we need in discussing the form and organisation of the Army is to know how far we are getting value for money from the proposals of the Government. We have to get some sort of yardstick by which to measure them. The only yardstick I see that gives a rough-and-ready impression of how far the money that is being spent is being well spent is to see how far it gives us the formations which will enable us to meet our commitments. It is very difficult to talk about commitments of this kind in purely Army terms, because the Air Force and the Navy play an inseparable role from the Army today; but for the sake of argument we must make large assumptions on these matters and look at these commitments from the Army point of view.
I think that it is generally agreed on both sides that the defence of Europe has to be priority No. 1. It has become an aspect of our home defence. As the Secretary of State for War said, if the Red Army were to be established in the Channel ports, the life could be bombed out of this country. Therefore, the defence of Europe has become an indispensable condition of our survival. The strategists tell us that between 50 and 60 divisions will be required if Europe is to be made safe against attack. Of course, the Atlantic Powers and Germany must all contribute to the building up of this force of 50 to 60 divisions, but in the building up of that force we in this country have a special responsibility. The countries on

the Continent which were occupied at one time or another in the last war have suffered a certain demoralising process which makes them, not unnaturally, hesitant to make as great an effort as they will have to make if the Continent is to be defended.
There is a tendency on the other side of the Channel to say, "We want to see what the English and Americans are going to do first." That tendency is particularly strong in Germany. On the other hand, in the United States there is a considerable body of opinion represented by distinguished men, such as Senator Taft, who say that the contribution of America to the defence of Europe must be in proportion to what Europe does herself.
There is a special responsibility on us to solve this dilemma and to take the lead. Of course, the amount we can contribute to the defence of Europe is severely limited by the contribution we make at sea and in the air. Nevertheless, I believe it has to be something much larger than the four divisions which, as far as I understand from the statement of the Government, are all that we so far have been able to promise to place under the command of General Eisenhower. I should have thought that a British contribution to an army which has to be, in the end, about 60 divisions strong, could not be less than six divisions, and I should have thought it might well have been eight divisions-standing on the Continent of Europe, in Germany and Austria, now in peace-time. Of course, it is arguable that we do not need to have quite so many forces on the ground in Europe, that we would have warning of a Russian build-up, that we would have time to mobilise our Territorial divisions, and so on; but are we to mobilise every time the Russians begin moving troops westwards? If so, we shall be a constant prey to a war of nerves and the victims of a political strategy which might have far-reaching consequences.
There is another more fundamental aspect to the question of having a large standing army in Europe today. It used to be said that Britain loses every battle except the last battle. But under modern conditions, if we lost the first battle we may well have lost everything else. But then we are threatened not only in


Europe. We are threatened quite as seriously, if not as vitally, in the Middle East, across which run our sea and air communications with that part of the Commonwealth, its greater part of which lies around the India Ocean.
What are our prospects for defence in that part of the world? They are far from hopeless. We have friends in Greece and Yugoslavia. We have our Turkish allies. We have, as the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) pointed out, the local forces of Israel and Jordan. We would not doubt get a sizable contribution, as in the past, from the Commonwealth. There was a statement of Mr. Menzies yesterday showing the continued interest of Australia in the Middle East. Pakistan might make a contribution to the defence of Persia. But we shall not get the Balkan countries pulling together, or the Commonwealth making its full contribution, unless we have a nucleus of British strength out there. I find it hard to see how that nucleus can be much less than three divisions strong.
Going farther East, we have the threat to South-East Asia. The economic importance of this region has been made clearer than ever in the last year during which Malaya alone earned more dollars than the United Kingdom. We are also aware of the strategic importance of that part of the world. If it goes, India and the Middle East may soon be in danger. At present the major burden of the defence of South-East Asia falls upon France. The Commonwealth, too, would in a crisis play its part in the defence of that region. But so must we, and I cannot see how our contribution can be much less than two divisions in South-East Asia.
If that is a fair review of our commitments in Europe, in the Middle East and in South-East Asia, and if the figures I have put forward represent more or less the number of division we shall need for the defence of those regions, then we shall need a standing Army which, allowing for garrisons in isolated Colonies and for some reserve at home, will be of the order of 15 divisions. It is all the more urgent that we should set about trying to create that standing Army as, on the admission of the Secretary of State for War, we shall not have a really properly organised or full Territorial Reserve for three and a half years.
Is this possible at all? Can we maintain 15 divisions in peace-time? Of course, in war-time, in 1944, we reached a peak of 27 divisions. We are still the same people and I have no doubt, if we put our minds to it, we could do at least half as much to save the peace as we did then to win the victory. Plainly, however, if we increase the strength of the Army by the equivalent of five divisions, we shall impose a great drain on our manpower and on our resources if we do it at the present rate shown by the Army Estimates.
This brings me to what is really the fundamental problem of organisation today, of how to cut the tail and strengthen the teeth of the Army. Even accepting the Prime Minister's statement that we have the equivalent of 10 divisions—and I think that that is a pretty bold assertion; I should have thought that eight fighting formations was nearer the reality —our divisional slice works out at present at something like 45,000 men; we are getting one division for every 45,000 men in the Army.
Let us see how this compares with other countries. Basing myself on the figures given by the Minister of Defence, the Russians manage to raise their divisions on a divisional slice of 16,000 men. We know, of course, that the Russian division is much smaller than ours in manpower, although its weapon strength is about the same; but even if we regard three Soviet divisions as the equivalent of two Western divisions, the Russian divisional slice is still only 24,000 as against our 45,000.
It is true that the Russians are rather different from the Western world and that we cannot entirely base suggestions for reorganising the British Army on what happens in Russia. But take the organisation of the German Army in the last war—after all, the differences between the living standards and so on of the Germans and ourselves are not so very great. In 1945 the Germans managed to raise one division out of 23,000 men. Some of their divisions were smaller and had seven battalions as against our nine, but even allowing for that, the German divisional slice was still under 30,000.
It could, perhaps, be argued that Germany had no overseas establishments to maintain and that a country with only one main military base does not have


quite as large a tail and does not need quite as many supply and headquarters staffs. Let us, therefore, take as perhaps a more equal comparison the present situation in France, because in terms of colonies the French now have greater colonial commitments than we have. The present French Army, on the figures I have been able to obtain, is, or will be at the end of the year, about 15 divisions strong. The divisional slice in France is to be 35,000 and it is estimated that by the end of 1952 it will be down to 30,000. If we could reach this latter figure for our divisional slice, we should be able to get 15 divisions from the existing manpower in the Army; that is to say, our 420,000 men would yield 15 divisions instead of the equivalent of 10 divisions. By a reduction from 45,000 even to 35,000 the difference would be appreciable.
I was very glad that in the recent defence debate the Minister of Defence recognised this problem and even went out of his way to do so. That, at any. rate, is half way towards solving it. But what is the Government going to do to achieve this reduction in the divisional slice which would enable us to raise an Army large enough to meet our commitments without having to make any much larger call upon our manpower? Could the Secretary of State for War at least undertake that a still closer study will be made of what was done in the past in the German Army and what is being done today in the French Army? Can he assure us that the fullest consideration has been given to the possibility of employing more women, for example, in clerical and other jobs?
Is the Minister satisfied that a sufficient investigation has been made into cutting down to a minimum the amount of impedimenta which is carried by our formations? I sometimes have a feeling that in our Army, as, indeed in the United States Army, we are haunted by a sort of White Knight complex, a feeling that we have to have every possible weapon to meet every possible emergency and that as a result the Army has to carry more experts to man them and more different types of ammunition to feed them. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that we could not have greater simplification? I understand that Colonel

Marshall, who was observing the progress of the American Army in Korea, has made a report in rather similar vein in the United States Government. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that we have done as much as we can to prune the size of headquarters staffs and that as much as possible has been done to decentralise Army administration and so reduce the number of people employed on the chains of command?
There is another side to avoiding undue strain on our manpower which has been raised by more than one hon. Member this afternoon. It is the possibility which seems open to us in East and West Africa of recruiting colonial troops on a very much larger scale. In the last war the record of these troops was comparable with that of some of our own best units, and they showed themselves altogether suited for campaigning in the Middle East and South-East Asia.
I am well aware that there are limitations in terms of officers and N.C.O.s. and in terms of the numbers of people in those countries who are ready to come forward to volunteer; but the fact remains that we recruited something like 250,000 men from East Africa and a similar number from West Africa in the last war. I should have thought something on those lines could have been attempted again today. There should not be great difficulty in finding Army officers. After all, the same element that gave us the officers and N.C.O.s. of the Indian Army is not finding an outlet today and here might be a chance to give a long-term career to men who, for one reason or another, are not attracted by Regular service at home.
Another point which has been mentioned by many others, but which I must continue to press on the right hon. Gentleman is the importance of forming a Foreign Legion. This would be a very much smaller strain on our resources than the formation of a colonial unit. Among refugees we have large numbers of former officers and N.C.O.s. who fought side by side with our troops in the last war and are still of military age. A great many of them, as a result of fighting side by side with our troops, know our military organisation, understand how we work and would fit in without great difficulty into the main pattern of our Army. I should have


thought that it was not outside the bounds of possibility to raise one, if not two, divisions from such a source.
Another point was suggested by the peroration of the Secretary of State for War. He talked about the purely defensive aspect of our military policy, but also stressed the importance of taking the offensive in other fields. I agree with him entirely in what he said on that subject. I do not ask him to go into details, because it is not a subject which can easily be discussed in detail in this House and still less a subject on which the Government can give detailed information. But could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he has satisfied himself that enough money is spent on political warfare and that enough effort is being made on building up the sort of cadre which was able to pay a considerable dividend in terms of resistance movements in the last war? That is a form of defensive preparation which gives a very high return for a very small outlay.
A certain amount has been said by the Secretary of State on the shortage of officers in the Army. It is, of course, no use crying over spilt milk, it is a fact that we have pressed on the Government since 1946 the importance of increasing the pay and making the conditions of service in the Army more attractive. The officers exist in reserve and, if the national emergency requires it, the Government must have the courage to call them up. I hope it will not be necessary. But in so far as it is necessary, it is because of the failure, as I see it, of the Government to take necessary measures in time, four or five years ago. After all, nothing in the situation has changed very much in the last five years. The dangers which confront us were clear enough to more far-sighted people at the time when the Leader of the Opposition made his speech at Fulton in 1946.

Mr. George Thomas: He did not say it in February, 1950.

Mr. Amery: I do not know of any occasion on which my right hon. Friend has ceased to point out the danger.

Mr. Thomas: What about his broadcast?

Mr. Amery: In that broadcast he stressed the danger and spoke of the necessity of having conversations to bring the danger to an end.

Mr. Thomas: Does the hon. Member forget that the Leader of the Opposition questioned whether the expenditure of £750 million on military defence in this country was necessary?

Mr. Amery: What I understood was that my right hon. Friend questioned whether it was a good thing to spend so much money and get so little for it. The truth is—and this is, in a sense, the measure of the Government's Army programme —that five years after the greatest war in history we face a renewed emergency without enough officers, N.C.Os. and equipment. More money is being spent on the Army and there are more men in it than ever before in our history; we have National Service but fewer fighting formations than we had on the eve of the war. That seems to me to be the measure of the Government's Army programme, and it is not very satisfactory.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Richards: I feel that I am entering this debate as a very unworthy back-bencher, and I am strongly reminded of the old adage "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." I am not quite prepared to register myself as a fool, but at the same time I know that a great many hon. and right hon. Members know a great deal more about the subject than I do. I have been impressed during this debate by the fact that we in Parliament at all events are gradually becoming aware of the fact that we must not treat our own defence in isolation. It is a part of a wide scheme which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), involves other countries as well as our own; and the effort, if it is to be successful, involves at all events the 12 nations which have adhered to the Atlantic Pact.
No pact in which America does not actively participate would be worth having. Consequently when we are discussing the re-armament of our own country, we must always keep in view the great interdependence there must be in future between this country and America. At the same time we cannot forget those friends of ours in the Commonwealth to whom we are, by ties of blood and of


history, deeply indebted by this time. Leaving America aside for the moment, I should like to consider in some detail the position of the various European countries. Without America the position in relation to the defence of the Continent of Europe is perfectly hopeless.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State, or whoever is to reply to the debate, this question: for what are we re-arming? Is it the idea that we cannot get Mr. Stalin and his colleagues to consider this very serious point until we are more adequately armed than at the moment? Is it the argument that if we arm to some extent we are likely to impress the Russians with the fact that we are in earnest over this business? Let us see where we stand. I understand that by 1953, two years hence, Western Europe will have something like 50 divisions, of which I believe it is estimated that six will be from this country. We are told that Mr. Stalin has something like 150 divisions. Therefore, this preliminary question ought to be answered: is he going to be impressed with Western Europe having re-armed to the tune of 50 divisions when he himself has 150, that is to say, three times as many? That, I consider, is the fundamental question we have to ask ourselves. Are we to try to impress the Russians? If so, is the army that we are to have in the West likely to impress Russia when, she has an army three times as big?
It is perfectly true that if we take the countries in Western Europe one by one, we shall soon find that it is only the highly industrialised nations which can face the possibility of a modern war. Broadly speaking, there are in Europe only two countries which can undertake a modern war—Germany and Russia. At the moment, Germany is in an impoverished condition, but we have to remember that her capacity for recovery is very remarkable, and the high state of education among her people would make it possible for Germany, if adequately re-armed, to take her position again as one of the great and powerful nations in Europe.
I would remind the House that in 1913, before the First World War, Germany was the predominant industrial nation in Europe. From the point of view of

production, particularly production of steel, the figure for Germany was three; for Great Britain it was two and for France it was one. Her capacity for production was very considerably increased during the Hitler regime, between 1933 and 1939, although there has been tremendous destruction in Germany since then. Let us look at the other nations which have joined with us in a determination to set up a powerful Western Union. I do not think we need waste very much time about the countries in Northern Europe. All that Hitler did with those countries was simply to walk through them on his way to Paris. I suggest that what Hitler did in 1939, Stalin can certainly do in 1951.

Notice taken that40 Members were not present;

House counted, and,40 Members being present—

Mr. Richards: When I was interrupted, I was trying to summarise the position of the various nations in Europe which are linked with us with a view to the establishment of a powerful union in Western Europe. We are left now only with France. For the time being, Germany is hors de combat. Consequently, it appears to me that the burden will fall upon three nations, primarily upon America; secondly, ourselves and thirdly, France. France is in a very precarious position indeed. There are various considerations. First, she has had a declining population which by now is almost static. Before the last war the Germans well knew the position. They had made a special study of the demographic position in France.
I do not think that anybody in this House can deny that France fell because she was completely exhausted. She had been through one very serious war and she felt that she could not possibly face another. Are we likely to see a considerable resurgence in France in the near future? I think that is impossible, and that we and America will be faced with the defence of Western Europe and that nobody else will be practically involved. It is no use looking to other countries— to Italy, for example. This is what a recent historian has written about the position in Italy:
The war in Italy has also proved that Italy, which counted amongst the foremost


European States, cannot attain the status of a great military nation even after 20 years of clamorous militarism, since six French divisions indifferently equipped during the last war held 30 Italian divisions in June, 1940, and a handful of British troops conquered the vast Army of Graziani.
It is a dark outlook for the people of this country. I know we are prepared to face it; we have faced it before, but I think we ought to know from the Government what they intend when they talk about the re-armament of this country. Are we going to get the other nations to move on as rapidly as we desire to do? If we do not, the re-armament of Western Europe will be one of the great tragedies of history.

Orders of the Day — TERRITORIAL ARMY

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, while appreciating the spirit in which volunteers in the Territorial Army are attempting to meet the formidable task which confronts them, urges His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to remedy the present serious shortage of personnel and up-to-date equipment in the Territorial Army.
If in peace-time the Army has often been the neglected Cinderella of our Defence Forces, I think the Territorial Army, at any rate since the war, has tended to become the Cinderalla of the Army as a whole, and yet it lies at the very root of our whole military tree and on its base the entire mobilisation structure of the whole Army depends. With the recent introduction of the National Service Act, the composition and character of the Territorial Army has been radically altered.
Its rôle also has changed with the passage of time, because hon. Members will recall that it was Lord Haldane who created this force as a defence force for our own islands, but today it seems to be designed, as to a great part of it, as a supplementary field force to fight overseas. It is difficult to get an answer to the question of how many divisions are earmarked for overseas commitments; whether four or five divisions I am not sure, but, at any rate, it is something of that order. So far as its home rôle is concerned, that depends on a Government decision with regard to the Home Guard.
I must reinforce the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) because it impinges so much on the Territorial Army responsibilities at home. My view is that the Home Guard and Civil Defence might in some measure be integrated, and that the organisation of this dual purpose force should be commenced now, at any rate as far as the senior ranks are concerned. It does mean that, in addition to helping to meet overseas commitments, the Territorial Army will also have a commitment for home defence, and that makes it doubly essential that the Territorial Army today should be brought up to establishment and full efficiency, whereas, in fact, no one can say that it really is up to that standard.
The effect of the Government's action has not been to increase the size of the Territorial Army so much as to improve its future quality and experience through the lengthening of the conscript period. In fact, as the Secretary of State himself readily admitted, the increase in the numbers of the Regular Army at the present time has caused a corresponding standstill in the Territorial Army strength. The strength of the Territorial Army at present is about 97,000 men, 80,000 of them volunteers and approximately 17,000 National Service men— about one-sixth of what it ought to be. If five divisions are required for our overseas commitments, and we estimate a division as consisting of 20,000 men, plus a further 15,000 for army and corps troops, the number required immediately would be something of the order of 175,000 men.
We are, as it were, 75,000 men short already, even if the remainder of the Territorial Army divisions, which are not earmarked for overseas commitments, are totally disregarded, which they cannot be. It may be said that there are the Z reservists—40,000 for Anti-Aircraft, and 80,000 for the remaining branches. In my opinion, they will be no great help in a military sense to the Territorial Army. I appreciate that they may be a help ultimately, because some of them may sign on, and I hope very much they will. The Secretary of State expressed that hope in his speech, and I hope he is right.
From a military point of view, I do not think that 15 days on a once-for-all basis can possibly be enough. Out of those 15 days, one day will be spent getting there, one day going home, there will be two Sundays on which they will probably attend church parades, and, in all probability, one of the remaining days will be so wet as to be almost useless from a training point of view. That means, in effect, that the period will be reduced to 10 days of effective training. Although I appreciate full well that the call-up is limited to the Territorial Army for the duration of the camp, nevertheless, from a military point of view, I do not think it is very valuable.
I assume that the 80,000 Z men will go mainly to the five divisions which have this Continental commitment in order to bring them somewhere nearer to their proper war strength. These Z men are a stop-gap until next year when the National Service intake will have brought the five overseas divisions up to war establishment. By that time, they should be, at any rate numerically, ready to fight. So we see that the Government are banking on no war before 1952. But, even then, we have only five Territorial divisions and the remainder are still in skeleton form.
I shall leave the question of the Anti-Aircraft Command, if I may, entirely to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) who is to second this Amendment, and who is himself a commanding officer of the Territorial Army in that particular branch and is a great expert on the subject. I think it is clear, or should be, to all of us that there is now, and will be for some considerable time, a very great need for men. Over and above those I have mentioned, it seems to me that they will have to be found from volunteers.
Before coming to the general problem of recruitment, I wish to say a word about the officers and non-commissioned officers. In this connection I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), has left his place, because I fear that, on this subject, I shall be in conflict with him. I do not know whether his contribution to the debate was intended to be serious, but, if it was, I am only thankful that, so far as I am aware, it is not official Government policy, because my impression very strongly was—

I hope I am not exaggerating it—that he wanted field-marshals to be paid at the same rate as private soldiers, and the education staff in the Army to be the most important of all. I do not believe that on that basis we shall win many wars.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton). He wanted the pay of the private soldier raised to that of the field-marshal.

Mr. Fisher: I am all in favour of raising pay; I thought he was seeking to bring it down.
At any rate, on this question of the officers, I think that, unlike the Secretary of State's Memorandum, which gave some of us a good deal of anxiety with regard to the Regular Army—a matter which has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend—the quantity of officers in the Territorial Army is not a very worrying factor. But it is extremely important —and I am sure the House will agree with me in this—to maintain the quality of the Territorial officer. I always like to think that there was something in the old saying of the great Duke of Wellington, that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. But whether that is correct or not, I agree with the underlying idea of that old thesis, namely, that an army can easily be made or marred by its officers. Leadership, courage, dash, and so on, have so often turned the scale of battle, and turned what looked like defeat into a great victory.
The N.C.O.s are, of course, scarcely less important. Some hon. Members opposite, though I hope not many, may not particularly like the old-fashioned robust patriotism and militarism of the late Mr. Rudyard Kipling. I believe he is very unfashionable now, but in my opinion his was not a bad fashion. However, I think most of us would agree with him when he said:
But the backbone of the Army is the Noncommissioned man!
What about the backbone of the Territorial Army today? I believe it is only about a third of the proper establishment. If so, that is a serious matter. They are the instructors in individual training and teachers of weapon training and drill which are the basis both of military


efficiency and of the essential discipline of any unit.
I do not know whether more may be provided for the Territorial Army by the Regular Army. It is extremely unlikely because N.C.O.s. of the Regular Army are too busy already training conscripts in Regular units. Nor can we expect many more officers and N.C.O.s. with war experience to come forward, because they believe, not unreasonably, that they did their bit in six years of war. One cannot blame them. Most of them are married now and have children, and they are not getting any younger.
Another point of which we must not lose sight, and which is very important, is the county pride and the essentially local associations and the great traditions of various Territorial Army units. I think I said in the debate last year that pride of regiment whether in the Regular Army or in the Territorial Army is an absolutely vital requisite, because it is the firm foundation and inspiration on which training, fighting and everything else is based. Not less important is the team-work and sense of comradeship that exists among men who have lived near each other and have known each other all their lives.
It is for that reason that the new London Plan is in many ways rather a good one, because it earmarks men to serve in units in areas where they normally live. At the same time, in some cases that does tend to destroy the regimental traditions which are perhaps even of greater value than local associations. Will the Z men, for instance, be called up to the London Rifle Brigade or to units of that sort? Will they have the green berets of the Rifles? Will other Z men have the traditional dress and badges of the particular units to which they are assigned and which they would be extremely proud to wear?
I hope I am not harping too much on this haberdashery, but it is important psychologically. I remember during the war that the Guardsmen had high set peaks to their caps and they were suddenly issued with those dreadful fore and aft things. They were frightfully insulted. It did make a big difference to them. These dresses are features of many old regiments and they should be preserved whatever the future structure of the Territorial Army may be.
One must remember—and it is really rather importaut—that we are entering today a completely new era in the Territorial Army. We are changing its whole character. In the past it has been an entirely voluntary force. Every man has been a volunteer making his personal contribution and getting absolutely nothing for it, giving up his leisure time from a sense of duty and patriotism. Now we have added to this voluntary element the National Service element. The new arrivals have a statutory obligation to serve and, therefore, they have a slightly different approach to the Territorial Army. Perhaps they have a slightly less interest in it at the beginning. It is important to recognise that change in the Territorial Army. I do not quarrel with it. In the circumstances perhaps it was inevitable. It is a completely new situation, and it will obviously create its own problems.
The old voluntary atmosphere is fast disappearing. It may never have been outwardly super-efficient, but it did work. It produced the result in war and that is the main thing. This volunteer spirit, which used to be the life blood of the whole thing, and, indeed, the very soul of the organisation, is now in effect only its bones, and in future it will be the National Service men who will provide the flesh and blood to clothe the skeleton and bring it up to its required strength. It is very important that we should ensure that, at any rate, it is not different flesh and blood when we see the result.
There is a real danger here, which we ought to recognise, that the transfusion may destroy altogether the old volunteer spirit. If the volunteers are merely cadres for the conscripts—the Secretary of State himself used that very word —I think there is real danger of taking the whole heart out of the volunteer system. There is also the danger that the potential volunteers may say, "It is not necessary for us to volunteer to serve any more. The National Service men will man this unit. We are no longer required." That is the sort of atmosphere we must avoid. I think it is already a deterrent, and it might very well become a serious deterrent indeed to voluntary enlistment. I am sure the Under-Secretary of State recognises the danger, and will mention it to his right hon. Friend. I


am sure the Government will do their best in the matter.
I have been trying to think how the Government could give encouragement to voluntary enlistment. This is not a party problem, and I am sure there will be many suggestions from both sides of the House. I should like to make a few Suggestions before I conclude. The first relates to conditions of service, and under that heading there is the question of pay. We should recognise that we have always been getting the Territorial Army on the cheap. It is defence on the cheap. The Estimates show that the Territorial Army training costs something less than £4 million a year, whereas the total Army budget is rather over £400 million for the forthcoming year. That is rather less than 1 per cent. and it is very little to be spending on the training of the Territorial Army.
It may be that we have gone too far in this direction. The volunteers do not expect to make money out of it, but we should make certain that they are not out of pocket. Are the travelling expenses adequate in all cases? I merely ask for information. Is the training pay and bounty on a reasonably generous level? It may be that we can afford to be a little more generous to those men who give so generously of all their leisure time for the defence of their country.
On that point I want to mention again —I know it has been mentioned a lot in this House—the question of security of employment. That is a subject which is talked about a good deal by hon. Members opposite, but I should like to know whether the volunteer is really secure in his job when he goes to camp. The Z men recalled this summer are safeguarded, but surely it would only be fair and logical to give the same protection and security to the volunteers. Surely a man should not be deprived of his own holiday with his family just because he is prepared to go to camp for a fortnight for the sake of his country. That would seem an unreasonable proposition. I realise there may be difficulty with small employers, but if so could not the Government give a helping hand here? Do the nationalised industries set an example in giving time off and pay? I do not know; I am only asking. I believe some do and some do not.
I should like to quote the Secretary of State, speaking in the Army Estimates debate last year. Speaking of the volunteer and the National Service man he said:
It is our intention that there should be no discrimination whatever between those two classes, and I think it is very important that there should not be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1651.]
I quite agree, but in that case on what principle is there now to be discrimination in favour of the Z man and against the volunteer? It is not a very good way of getting the Z man to volunteer, for he sees that he will be worse off if he does volunteer. It is a short-sighted point of view, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State to suggest to his right hon. Friend that he should look at this matter again. Certainly it seems most unfair and it will not help voluntary enlistment.
Could the Government give a positive lead here to industry? At present there is no uniformity in industry on this issue; one employer follows one practice and another employer takes a different view. Some employers encourage their men to go to camp; others positively discourage it. The truth is that there has been no real lead from the Government in approaching industry to get a uniform and satisfactory solution to this difficulty.
The next point I wish to make is one of importance. When the men get to camp are proper arrangements made? I do not mean, of course, the provision of feather beds and reading lamps; nobody who joins the Army wants or expects those things. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Well, they did not expect them when I was in the Army. But the fact remains that many camps are miles from anywhere. That is inevitable. There is absolutely nothing for these chaps to do in the evenings and, after all, one cannot train for 24 hours a day. We should think about giving them some relaxation in the evenings when they have done their day's work. I do not know whether film units could be provided for these very remote stations but, if so, I would say, "Please let it be a good film," because a very bad film or a very out-of-date film is worse than no film at all.
Another point in connection with the period spent at camp is that the equipment must be up to date. That is essential. I know that we have been promised that it will be so, and I hope very much


that the promise will be fulfilled. It is very important that it should be fulfilled Another point which may seem rather small but which is worth making is this: could there be more civilian assistance in fatigues, such as potato peeling? The National Service men and the Z men will volunteer only if they have plenty of equipment on which to train and the minimum of fatigues on which to waste time.
That will be quite an important point when the Z men and National Service men consider whether they should volunteer. In war time, men know perfectly well that they have to do their own fatigues and they get on with it, but if we want people to volunteer for the Territorial Army then we must make it attractive for them to do so. At any rate, we must make them feel that they are not wasting their time; and as the main part of their Territorial service is in camp, I think the conditions of camp will be an important feature.
I believe that the percentage of National Service men who volunteer for the Territorial Army varies from unit to unit. It varies, I believe, between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. according to the different units. In his opening speech the Secretary of State said the figure was something like 20 per cent. overall. On one thing all units from which I have heard are agreed—that those who volunteer are of an extremely high quality. Our job is to create conditions in which a higher proportion of them will want to sign on.
The last point I would make is perhaps the most important. Can we give some really inspiring leadership to the Territorial Army in order to stimulate voluntary recruitment? I do not believe there has been any real lead in this connection from Government level.. No doubt I shall be taken to task here by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I listened to his speech in the debate last year with great interest, as I always do, and I noticed that he said —and he may say it again today; I do not know—that nothing could be done to meet this point and that even the Leader of the Opposition, with all the power of his appeal for sacrifice which has been so successful on many occasions in the past, had been unsuccessful when he broadcast

about recruitment to the Territorial Army.
That may be true; it is always difficult to assess the results of these appeals; but at any rate 1 should have thought the circumstances had completely altered since then. The nation is now far more conscious of its danger than it was at that time; the issues are clearer and the need is much better known. Hon. Members will recall that only a year ago when we were engaged in a General Election campaign re-armament and war were not the main issues. I think that that applies to hon. Members on the other side of the House as well. Even foreign policy was a secondary issue, and really that election was fought almost entirely upon domestic policy.
Today that situation is changed. Everyone is acutely aware of the danger. Our own men are fighting and dying in Korea. We are, in effect, at war, although, fortunately, it is a localised war. Though by no means desperate, our situation is certainly very grave indeed, and I am sure the people are well aware of it, and I am quite sure that they will be ready to respond to any appeal and play their part. So let us have an enlistment campaign, and an appeal to the highest qualities in our people, which are sometimes rather dormant in most of us. I am sure it would cost little to organise a campaign of that sort in comparison with its potential value. Quite apart from its being useful for the Territorial Army, it would stress to the public the need for defence, and, therefore, in that way, would be in line with general and agreed policy.
The campaign should be directed, in my view, not only to the potential recruits for the Territorial Army, but also to the public as a whole, because I think that one of the important things to do in building up the Territorial Army is to build up also in the public estimation its value and prestige and importance. So I ask the Under-Secretary of State for War when he replies to consider some of these suggestions. I hope there will be many more. I am sure there will be from other hon. Members, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will welcome them from both sides of the House. I can assure him that I put mine forward certainly in no party spirit, and, indeed, in no spirit of criticism, but simply in an attempt to be helpful.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the House is glad that my hon. Friend has used his good fortune in the Ballot to initiate this discussion on the particular problem of the Territorial Army. The Secretary of State for War himself devoted a considerable part of his speech to the Territorial Army, and I was particularly interested in that part in which he discussed the structure of the new Army since it was re-formed in 1947, and it is on that particular point that I want to cross swords with him in what he said in his speech. This Amendment calls attention to the serious shortage of volunteers in the Territorial Army. It was the Minister of Defence himself, in the defence debate, who said:
I must also emphasise that… the need for volunteers for the Territorial Army is now as great as, or even greater than, ever."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 417.]
So the Minister of Defence has emphasised that there does exist this shortage of volunteers in the Territorial Army. What I should like to do is examine the present position and also make some suggestions on how we can overcome this shortage of volunteers.
The first thing that I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will do—and I hope that he will ask the Secretary of State and the Minister of Defence and, indeed, the Prime Minister and all his Ministerial colleagues to do the same— is to show more demonstratively appreciation of the hard work which the Territorial Army has done and is doing. For four years now those officers and men in the Territorial Army have been working under considerable difficulties, with small numbers and very often a shortage of accommodation and equipment, and they do feel, in many instances, that there has not been public appreciation of what they have been doing. I realise that the Secretary of State for War has very heavy responsibilities at the moment and that his time is fully occupied; and, besides, the Territorial soldier does not want to be smothered with false praise. But he does his job better, I am quite convinced, if he feels that the Government and the people of the country appreciate what he is doing.
That feeling has become particularly prevalent, I think, during the past few

weeks because of the additional task which the Territorial Army has been given to do in connection with the Z Reserve call-up. The Territorial Army, I am quite sure, will carry through that task very ably, but nevertheless it is a considerable undertaking. I rather regret that when the Prime Minister announced this task in the House on 22nd February, he made no mention of the burden put on the Territorial Army. The task of training and administration one can easily recognise, but I do not think it is fully appreciated what effect this will have on the Territorial regiments until one goes into the details of it.
We spent several days recently—as was right—discussing the problem of the Z men. We have not discussed the effect on the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army has been organised for something like four years, and the men have been working together, getting to know each other and assimilating the best regimental traditions, as well as getting the spirit of the regiment. In a fortnight they are asked to absorb 300 or 400 men whom they have not seen before. Hon. Members opposite talk about dilutees, but this is dilution on a scale of one for one, and obviously it will affect the whole life of the regiment, however much they welcome these men.
These recruits will arrive at very short notice, and they provide a problem of another kind for the Territorial Army and for the men commanding it. Many Territorials have joined in lower ranks than they held in war-time. The Territorial Army is to have Z men in their war substantive ranks. Will a commanding officer promote men of his own regiment and then have a regiment top-heavy in its officers and N.C.Os., or will he place the Z senior N.C.Os. and officers over them and have some resentment in his regiment? That is the type of problem with which the Territorial Army will have to deal when having this intake of Z reservists. If the Territorial Army has to make an additional sacrifice because of the Z reservists, I hope the Prime Minister will make public the appreciation of the Government to the Territorial Army for what they have done in the past.
In regard to the strength of the Territorial Army, there is rather a strange sentence in paragraph 36 of the Memorandum which the Secretary of State for War has issued in connection with the Army


Estimates. There it states that on 1st December, 1950, the volunteer strength of the Territorial Army was 77,206. If we turn to the Memorandum which the Secretary of State provided in connection with the Estimates last year, we find that the Territorial Army strength a year ago was 82,533, or a fall of 5,000 men. It is rather difficult to reconcile the figures which the Secretary of State has provided for us on this occasion, and perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain a "rise" of minus 5,000 men.
The other thing which we should notice is that there has been no great rise in the figures for the Territorial Army volunteers since the outbreak of war in Korea, and when we compare that situation with that obtaining in 1938–39, it is very remarkable. We should have some explanation of that.
What is the target for the Territorial Army? The Secretary of State said this afternoon that it was 100,000 men by 1954. Three years ago the then Secretary of State for War, during the campaign for volunteers, said the target was to be 150,000 men for 1948. What target is the Secretary of State aiming at now? The mark of the failure to attract volunteers into the Territorial Army is to be found by comparing the figures of 1939 and 1951. If we look at the figures for the summer of 1939, it will be seen that just over 320,000 men were going to camp of their own accord.

Mr. Bellenger: Surely that was because the Territorial Army was doubled under the Hore-Belisha scheme?

Mr. Heath: I quite agree, but it was doubled and the men were there. If we take the summer camp this year, we find that in the Territorial Army with the Class Z men there will be something like 200,000 men. Everyone of the 320,000 men was a volunteer, but of the 200,000 men in camp this summer only 77,000, or whatever was the figure the Under-Secretary produced, will be volunteers; the rest are there compulsorily. That is the true judgment of the inability to get volunteers into this post-war army. In the present short-term situation which the Government face, they are in the position of wanting the men, and the men are not there voluntarily.

Mr. Wyatt: Surely the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that they were all volunteers. Was there not an arrangement by which, after the militia training of six months, men had the choice of joining the Territorial Army, so that although in a sense they were volunteers, they were rather impressed volunteers?

Mr. Heath: On my recollection that was not because of the militia system in 1939. The figures which I have given, I am assured, are the figures of the volunteers in the summer of 1939.
May I turn to the long-term position, having emphasised the shortage of these volunteers. It seems to me that the Government are relying too much on the National Service men. There is a tendency in all Government statements on this matter to rely rather too much on the National Service men. I think that the National Service scheme, as it has worked so far, has worked admirably, and that nothing could have been smoother than the way in which the National Service men came into the Territorial Army for the few months of last summer when the scheme was working. The highest praise is due to the War Office and to the Territorial Army Director, in particular, for the way in which the scheme was worked out. I think that in the coming months the scheme will continue to work smoothly, but that does not alter the fact that too much reliance is being placed on the National Service men.
The figure given by the Secretary of State of 20 per cent. volunteers coming into the Territorial Army from National Service was most encouraging, but at the end of three and a half years that gives total figure of volunteers of only 80,000, and that does not add to our total strength because of the reduced number of National Service men coming in compulsorily. All it does is to add to the total figure of volunteers those who are directed. I hope that he will make that plain. If we are to take the Secretary of State's target of 100,000 volunteers, we have to add on the 80,000 who volunteered for the Territorial Army. It seems that the total volunteer force has to be much more in the nature of 250,000 if it is to satisfy the needs of the Army both for the field forces and A.A. Command.
The other long-term point is the question of senior officers and N.C.Os. In


four years we have lost the first main intake of senior officers and N.C.Os. who have done their time and left the Territorial Army. The second intake is coming along. In five or eight years, where is the remaining intake to come from? We are going to obtain senior officers and N.C.Os. from National Service men who only cover an age group of 18 to 25, which is training up to the corporal or bombardier level. Then we are going to have a large gap, which cannot be satisfied by National Service men for probably 15 years. That is a very serious problem. My comment on the policy so far is that it is failing to produce the number of men wanted by the Government to train this summer, and that in the long-term it will not produce the number of volunteers wanted and will leave a large gap of senior officers and senior N.C.Os.
I now turn to the remark of the Secretary of State that in this post-war world he had tried to graft on to the National Service structure the old volunteer structure. I think those were his words. I believe that is the explanation of the failure to obtain volunteers. What has happened is that the National Service edifice has completely overwhelmed the idea of a volunteer Army. It has not been grafted on in any way. That would have produced the result I have suggested. What has happened is that the emphasis has been placed on the National Service man, and this conception has to be altered before we shall get volunteers. There is an interesting paragraph in the Memorandum, paragraph 14, which says:
In the past year the Territorial Army has continued the training of officers and other key personnel as instructors in unit volunteer cadres for the reception of National Servicemen.
All the emphasis is on the Territorial Army as a framework or skeleton whose aim and purpose is to help the National Service man. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that he cannot attract volunteers by an appeal to become part of a skeleton, because nobody likes to volunteer on that basis, not even the Under-Secretary himself. The major thing which the Secretary of State should do is to reconsider the conception of the post-war Army and to revert to his original phrase of grafting National Service on to

a volunteer Army. A volunteer Army it must remain if it is to be successful.
In my last few minutes may I point my argument from the instance of A.A. Command? That command, as the Secretary of State has said, is of the first importance for the defence of this country. Again, if I may quote the Minister of Defence, he said with regard to A.A. Command:
We must maintain this part of our defences at the highest possible state of readiness, both to safeguard the country against air attack, and to protect our fighting units and lines of communication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 415.]
It is essential for our industrial and civilian morale to have anti-aircraft absolutely ready at any moment. Moreover, we cannot mobilise our field force formations unless we have adequate air protection. In the Estimates it is stated that the first purpose of the Territorial Army is—
To provide the bulk of the anti-aircraft and coast defences of the United Kingdom and the reinforcements in those Arms required overseas.
So it is laid down there that the first priority of the Territorial Army is to provide the men for Anti-Aircraft Command.
What is the position, first, as far as the men are concerned? We know from the published figures-in 1941 to 1942 that at the peak of the last war there were 341,000 men in Anti-Aircraft Command. I quite agree with the Secretary of State that it is a vast drain on the manpower of the country. I suggest that the only way that drain can be reduced is by so improving equipment that we can reduce the number of men required to operate it. Taking the rough figure of 300,000 men today, first, we know that we have a small Regular element for anti-aircraft. Secondly, we know that the Territorial Army, taking a strength of 77,000, may have between 35,000 and 45,000 men in A.A. We have been told that the Z men will provide 40,000 for anti-aircraft. That gives a total of between 75,000 and 80,000 men. That, surely, is only a small part of what is obviously required for the A.A. defence of this country? I suggest that the only way in which that number can be increased is by a large number of volunteers who must be obtained in the way I have described.
If we take the part which the National Service man can play in A.A. Command,


it is not as great as in the field force. Moreover, the Secretary of State has said that a large number of those men have to be re-badged. In any case they come from other arms. That gives a position in which the National Service man requires more training than the Z reservist who has more experience and fundamental knowledge of anti-aircraft, which a large proportion of National Service men have not got. Moreover, A.A. Command is a very technical arm in which rapid advances have been made and will be made in the future. So I suggest that the position there requires the utmost attention. More volunteers can be obtained from that large group who did their service between 1946 and 1949 and have no part-time obligation. Only by obtaining such volunteers can we fill the gap in A.A. Command.
I want to ask one or two questions about equipment, because the volunteer is unhappy unless he has the equipment he requires. Can the Under-Secretary assure us that all the up-to-date antiaircraft equipment which will be required this summer will be available for dealing with the mass of National Service men that we are to have? In the defence debate the Minister of Defence spoke particularly of the supply of radar and of guns. His notable omission was the supply of predictors. Can the Under-Secretary tell us the position regarding these? Anti-Aircraft Command should get the priority which it ought to have for new buildings, both operational and training. Is this Command getting that priority in its share of the amount to be spent on building?
I should like to add a word about Z reservists. This may have a very great effect on recruiting. The Secretary of State said that he hoped that the Z men would come into the Territorial Army. The T.A. will be judged on what happens in the camps this summer when the Z reservists are there. The Under-Secretary's Department also will be judged by what happens at these camps. The 15 days' training can be of considerable use, but only if the administration at the bottom is sound. The utmost use must be made of the 15 days—14 days is not good enough; travelling time must be cut down to a minimum, as must the time which is spent on kitting, documentation and so on. I am not assured that that is sufficiently understood at the camps to

which the Territorial Army will go or by those in command.
It is easy to understand that when a person's day-to-day task is to carry on the routine of a Regular regiment or of a camp, he does not necessarily quickly adapt himself to a situation in which he has to work full out all the time for 15 days; but that is what the Territorial Army wants, and I believe it is what the Z reservist wants also. He will not go away happy or satisfied unless he is kept busy on good training the whole time he is at camp. That, I am sure, is fundamental. Unless there is proper administration, kitting, good messing, equipment and the necessary training instructors, there may be the greatest disaster, which will reflect not only on the Territorial Army, but also on the War Office, and undermine the morale of large numbers of men and families. I urge the Under-Secretary to ensure that there are the necessary drive and imagination which are obviously required to ensure that everything that is needed is done for those 15 days in camp.
I should like to mention four points of a general nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher) has referred to holidays and protection for volunteers in their employment. This protection was refused—I think, most unwisely—by the Government on the Bill we discussed last week; it was said that they did so on the recommendation of the Territorial Associations. I ask the Under-Secretary whether that was, in fact, the case. I, as a commanding officer, have never been asked for my opinion about it, and neither has any other commanding officer I know in the Territorial Army. I do not find one Territorial Association which has been asked, and I have been on the general purposes committee of a Territorial Association for the past two years.
I ask the Government seriously to reconsider this, because I believe that the Territorial Army itself wants this protection and will feel very strongly about it in this year's camp. It was said that to grant this protection might have an adverse influence on employers because they would not help the men with their training during the rest of the year; but there is no difficulty with employers, for training is done in the evenings and does not affect a man's work. That argument, therefore, is fallacious.
The second of my four points concerns finance for the Territorial soldier. He does not want or expect to make anything out of the Territorial Army, but at the same time he should not have to suffer financially; yet that is what a good many officers and men are doing at present. Their evening allowances are not sufficient to recompense them for the expenses they have to incur, and I ask that this matter should be given adequate consideration.
As far as accommodation for the Territorial Army centres is concerned, I am disappointed that in the Estimates this year there is an increase of only some £200,000. Could not those buildings be taken in hand and money be spent on them so that the Territorial Army would have proper accommodation? Lastly, I ask that the traditions of the Territorial Army be respected, because even today there are attempts made to remove those traditions, which have lasted for so long and contributed so greatly to morale.
I sum up by saying on this question of obtaining volunteers for the Territorial Army that I ask the Government to reconsider the whole conception of the Territorial Army and turn it into a voluntary army in which the emphasis is on "voluntary." I ask the Government to give leadership in this matter. I want the Under-Secretary to make that extra appeal to the country, to stump the country if necessary, saying "Go into the Territorial Army." I want to see the Minister of Labour doing that. If he supports the re-armament programme, why should he not go about telling people to go into the Territorial Army?
In 1938 it was about 180,000 and in 1939 it had gone up to 320,000. Why cannot that be done today, if it is necessary? I believe it is. I cannot believe that the spirit of voluntary service which has lasted for so long in this country and has carried the Territorial Army through since long before there was a standing army—going back more than 400 years to the days of Elizabeth— cannot be re-kindled to bring volunteers back, and I urge the Government to do everything possible to ensure that.

9.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The House will support me when I say that the tone in which the hon. Member for

Hitchin (Mr. Fisher) introduced the Amendment is very much appreciated on this side of the House. At last it seems we have arrived at the stage in which these important matters can be discussed in a less partisan atmosphere than has surrounded some of our discussions on other aspects of defence during the past few weeks. The hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), if I may say so without being patronising, also made a very useful contribution in seconding the Amendment. One point in particular which was made by him was his comparison of the success of the voluntary recruiting campaign in the pre-1939 period with the relative lack of success that has attended the recruiting campaign since 1945.
In my view there is a very simple explanation of that. I think both he and the hon. Member for Hitchin overlooked the very important fact that since 1945 the Territorial Army, for the first time in its history, had to recruit at a time when there was compulsory National Service. That is a problem the Territorial Army never had to face before, and I suggest that it makes a difference in our approach to the problem if we bear that fundamental factor in mind. The existence of compulsory National Service at one and the same time as a voluntary force, is almost inevitably bound to act to the detriment of that voluntary force. It is in the nature of things and, therefore, I deny the validity of the argument that whereas before 1939 the Territorial Army —after the alert of September, 1938, we must not forget—had, without any competition from compulsory service gone up to 320,000 men, there is something very radically wrong with the Territorial Army at present.
I do not know what the latest figures are. I have no doubt the Under-Secretary of State will give them, but if we assume that the figure for the Territorial Army at present is somewhere in the nature of 90,000 I submit that that is not really too bad considering all that the Territorial Army has had to contend with since 1945. Full employment and compulsory National Service are two factors which have had a serious effect. What is the aim of the Government? It seems to me that the Government have in mind a reserve Force constituted of about 100,000 or 110,000 volunteer Territorial Army men and about 350,000 National Service


men—a ratio of one T.A. volunteer to every four National Service men.
That seems to me to be about the right and reasonable figure in our present circumstances. If these circumstances change radically, the figure may of course have to be changed, but so far as it is possible to envisage the constitution of a reserve force without economic collapse on the home front, that is something like the figure which is being aimed at. If that is so then the figure which we have reached of 80,000 or 90,000 men in the Territorial Army represents a substantial step in the required direction.
The hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment raised a number of points with which there is no time for me to deal. They made a valid point when they talked about the county tradition and the regimental tradition. The hon. Member for Bexley will agree that it is not a very satisfactory state of affairs when we look at some of the T.A. units in London and see them described as the 954th Light A.A. Searchlight Regiment or designated by some other fantastically large, number with a mere technical description of the kind I have mentioned. It is unfortunate that some of the old titles are falling out of use.
I should like to see some of these units designated not by something which looks like a code number in a War Office letter, but by a name that means something to the people living in the neighbourhood. When I was young and lived in the North of England every child at school knew the name of the local Territorial Army unit, and always used to say that that unit round the corner was the best in the British Army. That kind of sentiment, if anyone likes to call it that, is valuable, and we could with advantage do something to revive it if we got away from some of the titles now being given to what are otherwise admirable bodies of men.
The main point with which I wish to deal is the argument brought forward by the two hon. Members who have immediately preceded me, that whereas there is some degree of statutory protection for the National Service man there is none for the Territorial Army volunteer. That is, on the face of it, an anomaly. Although it was the subject of discussion in a previous debate, the fact that hon. Members opposite are again raising it tonight shows

that what was said on that occasion by the Government spokesman has not sunk in as well as it might have done. So far as I have been able to ascertain from inquiries in the local Territorial Army units in and near my constituency, the employers of Territorial Army volunteers are on the whole behaving extremely well.
Some hon. Members opposite look surprised that there should be a tribute from this side of the House to the contributions which employers are making to members of the Territorial Army. In every case which I have been able to investigate among local units in my constituency responsible officers have assured me that local employers behave very well. In every case the concession made by employers to the Territorial Army volunteer far and away exceed what is the statutory minimum in the case of the National Service men.

Mr. Ian Harvey: There was no suggestion from this side at any time that the employers are not behaving well. The proposal is that the volunteer should have a guarantee and there seems to be no objection to that at all. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will say whether he agrees with it?

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: So far as I can see, this guarantee is completely unnecessary because the Territorial Army volunteer is getting much more than the statutory minimum provided under legislation affecting National Service.

Mr. Paget: Is not the danger that a minimum always becomes a maximum and that in fact people would be adversely affected if given this guarantee?

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: I was about to come to that point which I think a valid one. My hon. and learned Friend is quite right: that would be the almost inevitable consequence if we imposed any more obligations on employers which are not already on the Statute Book. I am surprised at hon. Members opposite who seek to impose another statutory obligation on employers where the facts do not prove that it is essential in the national interest. With such knowledge as I have been able to obtain, I am convinced that the imposition of a further statutory obligation on employers who are already doing more than they need, would have


the reverse effect to that which hon. Members opposite have in mind.
It would not do the units any good at all, and the officers with whom I have spoken do not seek this particular additional provision or protection. If they thought it would help their units they would not be backward in saying so. The range of my inquiries has been limited but I have not come across a commanding officer in a Territorial unit or any adjutant responsible for day-to-day administration who has suggested that it would be to the advantage of his unit to impose this additional statutory obligation on employers.

Mr. Heath: Would the hon. and gallant Member explain how it is that the volunteer is getting more than the Z man or the National Service man is getting, because I am afraid that that is not true. Most of the nationalised industries are giving half. They give a week's leave for camp provided the man takes a week of his holiday. That is only half what the National Service man and Z reservists are getting. The Territorial Army men are obviously prepared to make the sacrifice. It is the other volunteers we want who will not sacrifice their holiday with their wives and children.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: If any difficulty arises in the case of local units in my constituency over employers not getting a man away to camp, it is always resolved as a result of a friendly discussion between the commanding officer of the unit and the employer concerned, who come to an amicable arrangement about it. If we attach any importance to the voluntary principle, we should hesitate long before we accept even the departure from that principle which is inherent in the argument that some further concession should be demanded from the employers over and above what they are generously offering in so many cases now.
It should be remembered that this is not merely a question of the annual camp. One hon. Member said that, of course, during the year the drills took place in the evenings, so that there was no difficulty in that respect. I am sorry to have to differ. There are lots of men whose working time is not from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. They have to get time off if they want to attend drills in the evenings, because the

drills overlap their working time. Circumstances may often arise when it is necessary not only to ask the employer to make a concession at the time of annual camp but to allow not infrequent concessions, changes of duties, and so on, to enable, for instance, the bus driver who works for London Transport, to go for evening drill. That may mean altering someone else's duty turn. This point must be borne in mind.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that this matter has not been carefully considered in association with the workmen's organisations and the employers. I have reason to believe that the National Joint Advisory Council which is, I suppose, the supreme body for joint consultation, has discussed this question on more than one occasion and unanimously come to a conclusion which differs from that argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite tonight. I do not know about committee members, but I understand that most chairmen of T.A. Associations who have been consulted are also opposed to the imposition of some additional liability upon employers.

Mr. Redmayne: The "hon. and gallant Gentleman has quoted commanding officers of, I suppose, major units, and also chairmen of Territorial Associations. Would he say how many units and how many chairmen he refers to, because, as far as I can see, his points are not related to the truth at all.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: I have made it clear that, unfortunately, my association at the moment is limited to the few units in or near my constituency. There are not more than three or four of them. I have had no personal conversations with chairmen of T.A. Associations, because I do not move in such exalted circles. I am still waiting to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite quote one example of the chairman of a T.A. Association who advocates what they have suggested.

Mr. Redmayne: I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the very information that he wants. The Nottinghamshire Territorial Association, with the full support of all commanding officers of major units, of whom the chairman is Major-General Sir John Whitaker, who was Director of Military Training during the war, has put forward this case with the very fullest support.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: The hon. Gentleman has quoted one example. If hon. Members opposite cannot rustle up more than one chairman of a T.A. Association in support of their argument, then they must think again. There is no evidence whatever that the men serving in the Territorial Army want this concession. No evidence has yet been supplied to the House. I say most emphatically that, if we impose on the employers in this regard, it will operate to the disadvantage of many of the men now serving, whom hon. Members want to help and encourage.
There are other points with which I would have liked to deal, but I shall content myself by concluding on this note. We all want to preserve the voluntary principle as far as possible, and it might well be that, if and when the Government are able to announce the end of compulsory National Service, there will be a very considerable inflow into the Territorial Army. I am quite sure that, if it were possible for the Government to announce that, if there were 300,000 or 400,000 volunteers for the Territorial Army, it would be possible to do away with compulsory National Service, there is a very good chance that that response would be forthcoming.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I am sure that, whatever the House may think of the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) about statutory holidays for the volunteers, the House as a whole will agree with him in what he said about the importance of local titles for different Territorial Army units.
I do not want to take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes, but I should like to make three points. The first is a plea that in any year there should be a graded bounty. The second is that, in the years when Z reservists are called up, there should be an increase in the bounty for volunteers. The third is a plea for the reconsideration of the officers' messing grants.
The volunteer is the basis—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher) said, the bones of the Territorial Army, and I should like to agree very much with the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) on the importance of clothing these bones with sinews and flesh.

The Secretary of State for War this afternoon took that line himself, and told the House that we, alone of all countries, have to rely on a Territorial cadre to train National Service men. It is very essential that we should not kill the volunteer spirit, but that policy is not helped by giving a bounty to Z reservists which, in these days of inflation and a fall in the value of money, comes very near to the bounty of the volunteer, who must give a great many drills during the period of training.
That policy is not helped either by giving holidays to Z reservists and denying statutory holidays to the volunteer. I agree that many employers have been very helpful to the volunteer. My own experience—and I do not want to be partisan in this matter—is that one of the worst employers in that connection is the Co-operative Society, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the advice of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton and urge the nationalised industries to have a co-ordinated policy and at any rate, give their own volunteers equal treatment with Z reservists.

Mr. Snow: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me? On this matter of asking employers to be forced into the position of granting paid holidays—and I am putting this in no partisan spirit—would that not involve repaying the employer in the case of a small firm, and would not that have to come out of State funds?

Mr. Tilney: I think there are difficulties there, and I shall come to that matter in a minute.
The main support of a T.A. unit is the man or N.C.O. who appears night after night and week after week, the man who can be relied upon to appear on Monday or Wednesday, or for Sunday training, which is so important in the Territorial Army. The basic bounty is for 30 drills, and the man who turns up night after night receives that and another shilling per drill for the next 30, but after those 60 drills there is no increase in his bounty at all. I urge the Under-Secretary of State for War to consider the value of giving a graded bounty of at least 1s. per drill for any performed over 60 so as to give an incentive to the N.C.O. or man who is the bulwark of his unit to attend the maximum number of drills.
I realise, as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) pointed out, the difficulty of small employers giving statutory holidays as well as time off for camps. I suggest that in the years that the Z reservists are called up there is much to be said for giving an increase in the bounty payable to the T.A. volunteer to recompense him for the lack of those statutory holidays. I hope the Government will consider that most carefully.
Finally, I want to deal with the position of the T.A. officer. In 1939, he was given a £4 messing grant. The amount is the same today, despite the fall in the value of money, and that grant, of course, is given to his unit and not to the officer direct. Meantime, however, the bounty for the other ranks has been greatly increased, so much so that, after allowing for tax, a warrant officer, Class 2, with special allowances and a maximum bounty, gets as much as a captain during his 15 days' camp; and, of course, a subaltern gets very much less.
In these days of high taxation and with national incomes spread so much more evenly, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will consider the case for giving officers an increase in the messing grant, because it is essential that officers should feel that in giving their service to the Territorial Army they are not suffering a financial burden.

10.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): We are all, I am sure, indebted to the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher) for raising this subject on the Amendment, and I would agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) that we are indebted to him also for the spirit and general tenor of his remarks. We must all readily consent to the view that the Territorial Army is of first-class importance in virtue of the fact, which the hon. Member mentioned, that its rôle in mobilisation today makes it a fundamentally essential part of our home defence.
Everything that my right hon. Friend said earlier today about the dangers wrought in the position of this country owing to the methods of modern warfare, and all that he emphasised regarding the fact that we must now pay much greater

attention to what is happening on the Continent of Europe and must realise that our defence is so much more bound up with the European countries, simply underlines the need for us to have forces ready within a very short period of the beginning of mobilisation. That hope, of course, cannot be realised without an effective Territorial Army.
The other fact that makes it important is that it is one of the most striking manifestations of the voluntary desire of the people of this country to take part in their defence. I concur entirely with the emphasis laid by the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) on the importance of realising that the Territorial Army is primarily a voluntary force. It is quite true—and it would be quite idle to pretend the fact was not there or to neglect the administrative consequences that follow from it—that there is to be a very great infusion into the Territorial Army of people who are not volunteers.
But what we hope—and this is not the first time I have said this—is that volunteers will not be merely a cadre or skeleton but that they will be a source of continual example and inspiration to the National Service men. We hope they will evoke from the National Service men the same concern for voluntary service and draw from them an increasing number of volunteers. What we hope is that in that mixture of the National Service element and the voluntary element the volunteers will infuse the National Service men with their own enthusiasm.
All this will be of added importance this year with the call-up of Z men. I think the hon. Member for Hitchin seriously under-estimated the value of the training we shall be able to give. But I do not want to rehearse the arguments that we have dealt with fairly recently in this House. I only ask him to reconsider what he said on that matter and to ask himself whether he has not written down far too severely the value that will be obtained out of the Z men's training.
But, as he rightly pointed out, all this is going to impose a serious additional burden on the Territorial Army. I say most emphatically that we do recognise what a large demand will be made on their enthusiasm, and how much the success of the whole Z call-up will depend on the co-operation of the Territorial


Army and on the extent to which it is given. We believe, with complete confidence in view of the past record of voluntary service by the Territorial Army, that all the help and enthusiasm we can ask from them will be forthcoming.
It has been suggested that the Government ought to show more strikingly their appreciation of the Territorial Army. Hon. Members will remember that not so very long ago there was a highly organised campaign for recruiting for the Territorial Army. During that time I think it was made very clear indeed how much importance both the Government as a whole and those Members of the Government individually who took special part in the campaign do attach to the Territorial Army. Hon. Members from all quarters of the House, as suggested, did stump the country in support of Territorial Army recruiting.
That campaign did not get us to the target that was set at the beginning, though I am bound to say quite frankly, being wise after the event, that it was imprudent to set for that campaign a target figure as high as was set. But if we did not get that target figure we did make a very substantial advance in the figure of Territorial Army volunteers. We secured the real purpose of the campaign of bringing the Territorial Army to such a size as to play the essential part in the national defence which we now require of it.
I am not sure how far this will command the agreement of the House, but I think it is true to say that enthusiasm for any organisation, Territorial Army or otherwise, is not always best shown by frequent "splashing," if that is not an irreverent word in this connection. I am inclined to think that what we ought to do now, after having had that campaign some little while ago, is to proceed on steadier but ultimately more remunerative lines. The real duty before the Government today is to provide in those matters that have been mentioned in this debate—equipment, accommodation and conditions of service generally—the atmosphere in which men who are in the Territorial Army will feel, not in virtue of this, that or the other speech which has been delivered, but in virtue of the fact that they know how the Government treat the Territorial Army, that the Government have a proper regard

to these things. That, I think, is the way in which we ought to proceed.
Therefore, without depreciating too much the importance of the periodic special mentions of the Territorial Army's value, I should like to lead the debate on to the more prosaic lines of equipment, accommodation and conditions of service. Before doing so, I should like to make this one remark. I do not think it tells us very much to compare the crude figures of Territorial Army volunteers now with Territorial Army volunteers before the war. The conditions are totally different. We have now the whole atmosphere of National Service which is bound to affect the number of volunteers. Further, we have, in my judgment, a community which is very much more alive and has a much more highly developed social sense than it had before the war.
Consequently, the numbers of the different types of voluntary service, other than service in the Territorial Army, in which citizens are interested, have greatly increased. We live in a busier and more zealous community, and it is harder to find people who, with the best will in the world, have the leisure for any one particular form of voluntary service, than it was in the past. Therefore, I do not think those casual comparisons get us very far.
With regard to equipment, I can most confidently assure the House that for the Territorial camps this year there will be all the equipment that is necessary for them to do their work efficiently and well. As the House is aware, our object is to see that the Territorial Army is equipped in time of peace with the weapons it would have to use should war come, or, at any rate, the weapons it would have to use in the early stages of such a war. But, as is also well known, the rate of invention today is much faster than it used to be.
As the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was pointing out in another connection, there is on the horizon a fresh generation of weapons; he applied it to tanks, but it applies universally. Consequently, while those units of the Regular Army, on whom the first burden would fall in the event of mobilisation, will be equipped with the latest weapons, necessarily units of the


Territorial Army, not coming so immediately into the line of mobilisation, would be a little behind those units of the Regular Army. Subject to that inescapable proviso, we have seen that the Territorial Army is properly equipped.
The right hon. Gentleman raised another point about Territorial Army camps, and I should say that the experience of the last two or three years of our Territorial camps is extremely encouraging. Men from every kind of unit and of all ranks have come back feeling not only that it has been an attractive time, but that their time has been thoroughly well used. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a point about forms of entertainment in camp. I do not think that is a point which arises in very many camps. Indeed, I think he himself had in mind particularly those in the more remote areas, but I will see whether anything can be done to meet that particular and rather specialised problem.
With regard to accommodation, before the war there were some 1,300 Territorial Army centres in this country. Though, fortunately, not a large proportion had been put out of use by enemy action during the war, we have had to add 370 centres, which have been constructed. In order to obtain the number we need, there remain to be added some 200 new centres, and in regard to these we have reached the stage of construction, or of planning, or of negotiation for the site. I think we have shown that we are in earnest in this matter by using our powers of compulsory purchase.
The House will appreciate that if we want to get a site for a Territorial Army centre, it is not wise to use powers of compulsory purchase if we can at all avoid it, because the Territorial Army depends so much on the good will of the people in the locality. When the local associations, which are the bodies most likely to know what is wisest in such a matter, have desired us to do so, we have used compulsory powers. That has been done in nearly all, but not quite all, cases. By that and by normal methods of negotiation, we have built up a quite a formidable increase in the number of Territorial Army centres.
The position with regard to accommodation is not as good as that of equipment, but we have made considerable

progress and it is steadily improving all the time. I do not feel that it could be contended that anyone has been discouraged from joining the Territorial Army as a volunteer because the Government had not done enough in matters of either equipment or accommodation.
Now let me turn to conditions of service. First, let me deal with the point about giving the volunteer in the Territorial Army the legal protection which the National Service man enjoys. It is common ground among all of us that we want to increase voluntary recruiting in the Territorial Army. If there is any point of difference between us, it is solely whether this step is well conceived and will contribute to that end.
I ask hon. Members who have so far disagreed with the Government's attitude in this matter to accept that there is no point in dispute about the end to be achieved. They question the wisdom of the Government's method. They must accept that we question the wisdom of the line they take. It would be undesirable if, out of mere habit, this question were allowed to become a party issue, because it is not the policy which is in issue, but the best method of achieving the given end. If we looked at this along party doctrinal lines, we might well find ourselves on opposite sides on this question.

Colonel Clarke: Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead) rose——

Mr. Stewart: I know that the hon. and gallant Member may want to say something about camps, but perhaps he will make his point later. The situation of employers with regard to the Territorial Army differs a great deal from one firm to another. One employer may find it difficult to meet the man's needs about camp. He may do his best to try to make that up by being helpful about letting the man away early on training nights. An employer can make a difference in many ways to an employee who is a member of the Territorial Army. It is not only the question of the period of annual camp; it is a question of the whole atmosphere.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Brigadier Prior-Palmer rose——

Mr. Stewart: I know by the attitude he is adopting that the hon and gallant Gentleman has made up his mind before he has heard what I have to say. That


is the kind of thing that makes it difficult to co-operate in these matters. What is at issue is not only the camp, but also the whole attitude of the employers towards the treatment of their employees who are in the Territorial Army. What we say, as a result of widespread inquiry among the majority of these volunteers, is that they do better by simply enjoying the good will of their employers, as they do at present, than they would if a statutory obligation were imposed on their employers.
For example, in one unit the commanding officer consulted a series of men whose immediate reaction was "Whatever you do, do not do anything to upset the good arrangement we now have with our employers." In face of that, one would certainly think twice: it cannot be taken as an obvious or axiomatic thing that we ought to impose this legal restriction on the employer in view of the fact that a particularly large number of men in the Territorial Army do not want it and would regard it with alarm as endangering the good position they have built up already.
Further, there are recognised channels of obtaining opinion in the Territorial Army as a whole on this matter. I do not think it would be wise if we begin to bandy the names of chairmen of the Territorial Army Associations across the Floor of the House, for if hon. Gentlemen are going to start that, I am in a position to keep up the game and return every one they serve. I earnestly hope that the argument will not be conducted on that basis. We have the Council of the Territorial Army and Auxiliary Forces Association, which considered this matter.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: When?

Mr. Stewart: I am coming to that. They definitely took the view which the Government are now taking. I am bound to say that there would be considerable legal and administrative difficulties in doing as some hon. Gentlemen have suggested, but the Government would earnestly consider surmounting those difficulties if they could really establish that the Territorial Army itself wanted it. It would not be wise to face what in any case would be a difficult task and one which might create difficulties for em-

ployers, and what, to the best of our knowledge, the majority of the Territorial Army do not want, and which would be regarded with alarm. The matter was considered by the Council and there was no doubt what their view was.
The hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) asked how long ago the council met. It was a considerable time ago; it was on the last occasion they met, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, it is not a body that meets frequently. Since then there have been consultations with the representative chairmen in the Commands and their opinion is unanimous that it would be undesirable to proceed in this matter. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have a great interest in this, as have many hon. Members on this side of the House, and have close personal contacts with the Territorial Army, and it is because of that that they have come to hold the view that they do in this matter. All I am asking is that, in the Cromwellian phrase, they should "bethink themselves they may be mistaken."
Further, it would not be wise or responsible for the Government, having, as they have, proper and recognised channels for sounding opinion in the Territorial Army, to set those aside, which is really what we should have done if we had attempted during the passage of a recent Bill to introduce legislation of the kind that was being urged. If we could have it established that the general opinion is not what I believe it to be on good evidence and with good grounds for so believing, then I agree we should have to consider the matter afresh. But on the present evidence that does not arise.

Mr. Low: Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain, when referring to the opinions of the representative chairmen and the Council, that he is not referring to opinions about the Z scheme and not to opinions relating to last years' problem, which was concerning National Service men and their call-up?

Mr. Stewart: The opinion of the representative chairmen did relate to the present situation. The opinion of the Council did not, and indeed could not in view of the time when it was taken. I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerates the extent to which the introduction of


the Z men really affects this problem. The problem that relates to the employer remains the same.

Colonel Clarke: I gather that the hon. Gentleman thinks that, while it would be desirable for employers to give a full alternative period of holiday, it might prejudice some employers against the Territorial system generally if that were insisted on by the Government. But in cases where the Government is the employer itself—in the case of nationalised industries, for example—why should not the Government insist that they give the full period?

Mr. Stewart: I do not see why we should impose on a nationalised industry greater statutory obligations than are imposed on a private employer. If it is to be said that it is the business of a nationalised industry to have special restrictions and legal liabilities put on it in order to help national ends—one can argue that, and that is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is arguing—it would be impossible when one is considering such matters as the costs, prices and profitability of a nationalised industry to judge them on the same basis as one would judge private enterprise. I invite hon. Members opposite to think out the implications of that.
On the whole, the nationalised industries have behaved extremely well in this matter of the treatment of the territorials, but some of them illustrate the difficulties of proceeding too far by legislation in this matter. Some of them have statutory obligations to go on providing a particular service in almost all circumstances which they might find it difficult to fulfil if they had this other statutory obligation imposed upon them as well.
What one really wants is to enable the employers to have a certain amount of give and take and to be able to say to the volunteer "I cannot, for reasons which you know very well and which are connected with my business, give you the total which the law would require me to give you if you were a National Service man. On the other hand, there are a number of other ways in which I can treat you with more consideration in regard to the Territorial Army than the law would strictly require me to do." Very often this is how the

good employer behaves. We should get the matter out of proportion if I continued on this particular point.

Mr. Redmayne: Mr. Redmayne rose——

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman has made a great many interventions in the course of the speeches but we cannot discuss this problem indefinitely and that is what we are in danger of doing.

Mr. Heath: I think we are all agreed on the importance of this matter, and the hon. Gentleman has rested his case on the fact that the majority of the Territorial Army do not require it. We on this side take the view that the Territorial Army would prefer it. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take this back and ask the Territorial Associations as a whole to consider this matter in the light of the present Z call-up, and ask their commanding officers to get the real feeling of the men in the regiments about this problem, and then reconsider it and make a decision?

Mr. Stewart: I think we want to go back right down to the men themselves. I should like to give an undertaking in rather more general terms. What I will do is to take whatever steps seem best and most appropriate to ensure that we are really in touch with up-to-date opinion in the Territorial Army on the matter, but I trust that hon. Gentlemen realise that I am not giving a guarantee that legislation would immediately follow opinion, because there are quite serious administrative difficulties in doing anything of this kind at all. What I was saying was that really that question did not arise until we had settled the question of what the Territorial Army wanted. I hope that Members who have contacts in the Territorial Army will not give countenance to the idea that here is something which the Territorial Army is crying out to have and the lack of which is seriously hindering recruiting, but which the Government are refusing to do out of obstinacy. The facts do not support that. If Members should create an impression of that kind, they would be doing the Territorial Army and the nation a considerable dis-service.
One hon. Member raised certain questions about the bounty. The bounty is, in a sense, graded—a man does get more


or less according to his efficiency. Fundamentally, it was suggested that this principle should be carried somewhat further. I will look into that, but it will be appreciated that it is undesirable to make alterations in such matters too frequently. I shall have to look at it with that quite considerable caveat in mind.
Reference was made to messing and to entertainment. We want to avoid, as far as is possible, too many different ways of making money payments to what is a voluntary body. Its members are very proud to belong to that voluntary body. It is quite reasonable to say that when a man gives up his leisure he should not be out of pocket as well. It is true to say, with one possible exception, that there is no reason to suppose that those serving in the Territorial Army are out of pocket. The hon. Member laid his finger on the point, which is the one exception, the question of messing and entertainment. That, again, is a point to which we shall have to give our attention to see if it is possible to meet it.
Finally, let me say a word on the conditions of service which are a little less tangible—the preservation of the tradition of local regimental affiliations. We have had to make a great experiment with them recently in the great reorganisation of the Territorial Army which has been carried out. I think everyone was surprised how smoothly that reorganisation was effected. It says a great deal for the public spirit of all concerned that it has been possible to make it work so smoothly. It meant for a number of people in units a good deal of heartburning, but it was generally recognised that if the joining together of the voluntary and National Service elements was to be done—and it is essential that it should be done—the reorganisation of the Territorial Army was an essential step.
I think that at least one result of having' National Service men in the Territorial Army will be that it will increase the number of people in any particular locality who know a bit more about their Territorial Army units. One result of National Service men being in the whole-time Army is that the public have begun to take an interest in the life of the Regular soldier, an interest we all ought to have taken a long time ago; and the same will be true of the Territorial Army. I can see emerging something that can combine the efficiency of organised National Service and

the zeal and enthusiasm that comes from voluntary associations. The hon. Member for Bexley spoke in approval of the London plan, and I look forward with pleasure to attending next Sunday the ceremony in my own borough in that connection.
Finally, what success the Government are or are not having lies in the figures. The hon. Member for Bexley was puzzled, not unnaturally, about two sets of figures in two successive Memoranda. The fault lies in the Memoranda. That for the earlier year includes the Women's Services, and that for the later year does not. To the figure of 77,000 in this year's Memorandum there must be added 4,300 National Service men who have volunteered and are now properly classed with the volunteers, and to make the figure comparable with last year, 12,000 in the Women's Services, all of whom, of course, are volunteers, must also be added.
The figures are not as large as we could wish, but, on the other hand, they should not be read too discouragingly. We shall not have quite the same stream of men who are complete volunteers once National Service gets under way. The correct place must be given to those National Service men who become volunteers and take on the added obligations of a volunteer. So far we have had 4,300, or rather more than one-fifth of the number eligible, and the proportion of National Service officers, although the numbers are much smaller, is somewhat higher. It is a proportion of about 25 per cent.
The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) complained that my right hon. Friend this afternoon had mentioned only one figure, that is, married quarters. I am surprised that this much more significant figure of National Service men turned volunteers did not stick more firmly in his memory, as it has apparently with many of his hon. Friends. It should be remembered that this figure of volunteers is given for a short period and before the men have attended annual camp, which is often one of the strongest recruiting agencies and one of the most popular elements in the life of the Territorial Army.
While it would be unwise to draw too many conclusions from what is only a period of a few months, I trust that I


have made it clear to the hon. Member for Hitchin, who moved this Amendment, that in the things that really matter, like equipment, accommodation, conditions of service and so on, the Government have shown and are showing that they are mindful of the great services rendered to the nation by the volunteer members of the Territorial Army; that they are anxious to encourage them in their work; and that the actual figures on the whole justify that contention.

Mr. Fisher: In view of the Under-Secretary's not unsympathetic reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

10.53 p.m.

Brigadier Head: I think this is one of the few occasions on which when starting a speech, it is out of order to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I hope it will not be out of order if I congratulate the Under-Secretary on the lucid way in which he has answered the debate on the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher). It was of the quality we expect of him, and for it we are very grateful, although not necessarily always agreeing with what he said.
The hour is late and I am well aware that to hon. Members who are waiting to speak, any speech is always too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My diagnosis has not been faulty. Nevertheless, there are one or two observations I should like to make, and I will try to be as brief as I can.
I listened with interest to the speech of the Secretary of State for War, and I think he will agree with me that it was not immensely informative. I do not think that any telegrams will be buzzing to and from foreign embassies tonight. Nevertheless, he told us certain things, which I, for one, was glad to hear. He did not trumpet very loudly the achievement of the War Office in getting transport down by 20 per cent., which is really a very great achievement. I congratulate the War Office, and with it the right hon. Gentleman, on that achievement.
I do not propose tonight to attempt to cover all the main questions regarding the Army, because that was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). He

went over the ground with all the rapidity of step and sureness of aim of the ex-rifleman. I should like to refer to one or two points some of which were omitted from the speech of the Secretary of State. He mentioned the question of B vehicles, or soft vehicles or lorries, to use a more Parliamentary term. I feel some disquiet over this question of B vehicles, or soft vehicles or lorries. So far as I know we are making no new ones, and are concentrating on re-building old ones. I have seen a few of them, and some are very wobbly. I believe there has been quite a bit of trouble about soft vehicles in Korea, where they have been breaking down a great deal more than they should.
Nor do I like the idea of impressing vehicles. I had some experience of impressed vehicles at the beginning of the last war when we were what the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) rather euphemistically called a "leopard brigade"; we were to spring from our position towards the sea in buses which were called "Lily Belle," "Sunshine," etc., and were painted all colours of the rainbow. Luckily, we never had to use them. There would be, of course, many different types of impressed vehicles, and the spare part problem becomes acute. I hope the Government are urgently going into the question of manufacturing and producing new soft vehicles, because it is a matter of great importance.
The next point about the right hon. Gentleman's speech with which I want to deal is one of omission and it concerns the 10 divisions, or their equivalent, mentioned by the Minister of Defence. The Secretary of State did not mention these 10 divisions, although these are the Army Estimates, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as everybody throughout the world knows, they are not really 10 divisons at all. It is no good our deceiving ourselves about it—and the Secretary of State appreciates the position, too. I am not quarreling with the word "equivalent"; it is not a bogus word, but is perfectly fair. Nevertheless, part of these divisions consist of battalions away in Malta or Gibraltar or a brigade in the Middle East, all added up and divided by three—and so we have 10 divisions. I do not quarrel with the arithmetic, but what I point out is that we have not 10 divisions and we must not pretend that we have.
My quarrel is not with that, however. The Minister of Defence told us that by April of this year we shall have 430,000 men in the Army. If the 10 divisions were up to strength—which they are not —then with all their bits and pieces there would be 20,000 men per division. That comes to 200,00 men. Thus, 230,000 men in the Army are not in divisions at all. The figures are—20 men in the fighting formations, 23 outside them. Despite the problem of dispersion and other difficulties, I believe that is a lamentable state of affairs, and I feel that many hon. Members opposite think the same as I do.
I know that comparisons are odious, but may I remind the House that the Minister of Defence told us that the Russians had 175 divisions and that they have 2,800,000 men under arms? A little mathematics gives us the result that they have 16,000 men per divisional slice. We also know that there are 11,000 men in a Russian division. Thus, a simple process of mathematics shows that they have 11 men in the fighting formations to five outside them. We have 20 in and 23 outside.
Take the German Army, when they were at their peak during the war. They had 300 divisions and seven million men under arms. That gives us 23,000 men per divisional slice. Using figures which are the least favourable to my argument, that gives a figure of 15,000 in the division and 8,000 outside. Thus the comparison is 15–8 for Germany; 11–5 for Russia; and 20–23 for Britain. I know how difficult this problem is, but the position still is not good enough. We have not heard a word from the Secretary of State about this important problem—how we are to tackle it, how we are to improve the position and how, for our very considerable expenditure of manpower, we are to get more fighting formations on the ground. For that, after all, is what we want.
I read through the Estimates and the right hon. Gentleman's Memorandum with some care, and there are, indeed, an immense number of points on which one could talk until well into to-morrow's debate. I do not intend to do that, but when I read the various pronouncements, I found many subjects—welfare, pay, organisation—hundreds of things on which I should like to comment. It is

very easy to get lost in this vast expenditure of money and manpower.
In attempting to find which of these elements was the most important to talk about, I reminded myself—and the whole House will agree with me—that the function of any army is to fight. In order to do that, it must be well trained and organised, but what is most important, the private soldier has to be good. In fact, the private soldiers are always good, and I recall a remark made by Field-Marshal Montgomery in Cairo a few days ago. He said that the private soldier bears the heaviest burden in war and it is he who carries us all to victory. That is eternally true, but one other point is that the private soldier must be well led.
However good may be the private soldier, he cannot be better than his officers, and if any hon. Members opposite doubt it, they will find that every private soldier will say, "One cannot put up a good turn with a dud officer." War is a very unpleasant thing, and when bits of metal are flying about—as hon. Members who may never have served in the Army will know from air raids—the instinct of the human body is to lie down, and stay down until it stops. But in a war, men have to do very unpleasant things, and the responsibility for showing courage and skill, as well as initiative, under such circumstances, lies on the officer and particularly the junior commanders. The responsibility on those men has greatly increased.
When Marlborough went to war, the brigade was en masse,and the commander could almost shout so that everybody heard, but today troops are widely dispersed, and there is far more delegated responsibility. It has increased in a way which would not be recognised by officers of previous times. One has to remember the importance of the company, platoon, and equivalent commanders. If they are not good, we can pour money and men into the Army and it will all be in vain, we should have wasted our manpower, as well as our money, to say nothing of our industrial effort.
Bearing in mind the importance of officers today, I felt some disquiet when I read—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to it—that the Minister is still not satisfied with the Regular officer situ-


ation, with the comparative dearth of candidates of high quality for Regular commissions. I make no apology for mentioning that again, because there has been ample time for hon. Members to have forgotten it. The Minister said that the matter was receiving his constant attention, and that he hoped the better pay and conditions of service would help.
In attempting to find the most important single matter in these Estimates, I picked on this question of officers, and hon. Members will, I hope, agree that it is vitally important to the Army. In fact, the whole of the rest of my speech is confined to this problem. Not only is there this shortage today, but there is practically no Regular reserve of officers. In addition, we have before us the necessity for expansion as and when Regular recruiting improves, which it shows signs of doing.
The officer shortage today is worse than it looks, because it is a concealed shortage. The right hon. Gentleman has put a stop on officers going out of the Army, but that operates only for about 18 months, and it will cease about the end of this year. If we are not careful, there will then be a further run-out of officers. In addition, since 1945 a large number of good officers have left the Army because they were dissatisfied with pay and conditions. I do not want to go into that matter, because I do not want to make this debate controversial; but I think that the Government were late in putting up the pay.
What is more disquieting about this shortage is that officers are not joining at the youngest age. The entry and exit figures for the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst for 1950 were: 482 passed out; requirement, more than 600. In the same year, there joined in January, 305, and only 203 in September. So 500 will pass out, and I would say that the requirement is about 700. The requirement must be going up. What the House has to consider seriously is why this is happening. I would point out that the best young men of the country are now being called up for two years. The National Service men are magnificent material. This has in effect turned the Army into a kind of national university. If we handle and train these men badly, that is a rotten introduction to life. If we turn them out well, it is a good intro-

duction to life. I suggest that the influences of that period will come inevitably, whatever hon. Members may think, largely from the standard of officer.
Why is there this shortage of officers? Some of my remarks may appear reactionary, but we had better face the facts. The first point is that many of the old attractions and amenities of the Army have gone. In the past, many officers joined because they liked an open-air life, and they liked sport. There is nothing wrong in that. Many officers enjoyed riding, or falling off, horses. The horse has disappeared from the Army. It occasionally makes an ignoble appearance on the men's plates at dinner to vary a monotonous diet. Again, officers joined the Army for comradeship. When a man joined a regiment in, say, the 'thirties, he stayed in that regiment, whether officer or man, undisturbed. I know that is difficult now, but cross-posting is a big deterrent to recruiting. The Secretary of State for War ought to read an article on this subject in the R.U.S.I. Journal by a very well-known officer. Although it may seem trivial to hon. Members, if a man can be sure of staying with his regiment, that is something immensely important to him.
Also, in the old days, under the Cardwell system, an officer— and this applies to a large extent to other ranks, too—knew where he was. He knew that for half his time he would be at home, and for the other half abroad. Nowadays, he may have an almost indefinite period abroad, with short periods at home. A large proportion of the officers who joined the Army in the old days—and hon. Members opposite may be shocked by this, but let us face the facts, as they say, or the future—had private means. They have not now. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but they have not, and that again is a factor. Lastly, officers are considering what is going to happen to them when they finish. I was very glad to hear the Secretary of State's statement about the prolongation of service; in fact, I had a note on that matter for my speech and have crossed it off, so I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his psychic power. Nevertheless, it is a big consideration.
What can be done now that many of the attractions and amenities have disappeared, to get officers in and stop


their leaving? It is a question of vital importance. I have already mentioned cross-posting, and I now turn to the very vexed question of pay. I know that here I am on very controversial ground, especially since pay has been increased, I say to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) that I cannot agree with his recommendation regarding pay. I do not know whether he had his tongue in his cheek when he said that we should reduce the gap between field-marshals and private soldiers, but I would point out that a Member of Parliament today has the equivalent of a gross rate of something like £1,500 a year and the man who works the lift in the House of Commons has about £5 a week. Considering what the hon. Member said, I wonder how he justifies that differentiation in pay. It is hopeless to think one can telescope pay together and be democratic. That is not the way the world works, and it is not the way to get field-marshals—or Members of Parliament.
I am not advocating more expenditure on pay, but I am suggesting to the Secretary of State this question: Have we got the emphasis of this enormous lump of money in the right place? We are going to have a mass of material and equipment. Ought we to have a little less of that and put a little more on the essential element, the officer? For unless the officer is good, all that equipment may well be wasted.
I have no quarrel about the bachelor in the Army. He is all right. It is the married officer who is the problem. He has got to educate his children, to live in a quarter outside barracks, and to move his wife about, goodness knows where. I believe the War Office worked out the minimum essential expenditure for the various grades. What the War Office works out as a minimum is not exactly a life of wine, women and song. The sum—I think I am right—for a captain with a wife, one child, and no Government quarter, was about £800 a year. He now receives £790 a year, so if he lives as per War Office he is a tenner a year overdrawn. But it is only fair to say that after four years he gets £820 a year, which leaves £20 a year for wine, women and song.
I am not saying that the officer is badly paid; what I am saying is that unless we offer sufficient attraction to get good officers, we are going to waste an awful

lot of money and effort. Say there is a war. Our main effort in Germany is the provision of three armoured divisions. This captain we have been talking about may well command a squadron in one of these divisions. The deployment, use and manoeuvre of these machines depends more on the squadron-leader than is the case with either aeroplanes or ships. This man has the command of 16 tanks. They cost £30,000 each. Therefore, under his charge is about £500,000 worth of equipment—or put another way, of British industrial effort. It is crazy to pinch and scrape over getting good chaps for the job when that equipment may be wasted if there is a faulty decision or he fails in battle.
My next point is this: What happens when the officer comes out? Pensions I know are a very difficult problem. The gross pension of a major is £475 a year. In the old days he possibly had some private means, he got a little house at Camberley or Cheltenham, and was all right. He is not all right now; he has to find a job, and a major retired is not an easily employable man unless he has some particular skill. I am not arguing necessarily for a higher rate of pension. In the Civil Service a man gets a gratuity when he comes out of a year's pay of the rank in which he served. If one were to give a flat gratuity to everyone who earned a pension of, say, £1,000, it would not cost an immense amount, but it would mean he could buy a house on a mortgage or start a small enterprise, and I believe it would have a big effect in allaying some of these doubts regarding his life at the completion of his service.
There is still the problem of the boy who is thinking of going into the Army. I do not know anything about the propaganda in the public schools—when it was mentioned, one hon. Member mentioned Dartmoor as a recruiting ground, which I thought was not very helpful. I have always suspected the propaganda of the War Office since they issued that poster "Join the Army to fit yourself for a better life in the future." We must remember that parents today will go to a great deal of hardship and sacrifice to give their boys a good education. It is becoming increasingly difficult for them, especially if they want to send them to public schools.
Might one not broaden the base of entry to the Army, and also produce a


greater attraction to the young boys, by something on the Dartmouth lines as an alternative method of entry? A large number of scholarships would be given, the boys would have a very good education, it would interest and attract the parents, and I believe it might have a big effect in increasing the number entering. I give that to the right hon. Gentleman as a tip—and we have not given bad tips from this side over the past few years.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the hon. and gallant Member in mind reducing the age of entry to Sandhurst?

Brigadier Head: My idea was that there would be the normal entry to Sandhurst, but that in addition there would be an alternative method of entry through a public school run rather on the lines of Dartmouth. I believe it would be a big attraction to parents, and would also broaden the opportunity of entry.
I give these suggestions about the serious officer situation, but even if they were adopted and worked splendidly they would not have much effect for the next year or two. The Army will have to carry on for the time being with the officers it has now, and if it is going to expand, as we hope, the Secretary of State has to remember that he has to make the fullest use of the limited numbers available.
What follows is rather a quisling speech, for I was a staff officer myself for great part of my service. I am going to attack the General Staff. It may be dishonourable, but this represents not only my own opinion but the opinion of a large number of officers on the staff as well. Far too many officers in the Army are now on the staff. Far too little has been done since the war to reduce the number. One of the reasons, much overlooked, for this is the increase in the number of levels in the staff.
Between 1930 and 1939 the staff was arranged on four levels. I am talking about the War Office. There was the director, a major general; the Gl, a full colonel of battalion, quite a chap (I apologise for the slang, but he was very fully qualified and had probably passed the Staff College and commanded a battalion); the G2 a major—about equivalent to the modern G1; and the

G3. Four levels, four people to decide things, four desks for the files to go up and down. Since then levels have bred like rabbits. Now there is a director, a major general, director, brigadier, brigadier on the staff, deputy director brigadier, deputy director full colonel, colonel on staff, Gl, G2 and G3. That means more levels, more typists, more clerks, more messengers carrying files around, more delays and less responsibility for individual officers. In my opinion, that is one of the main causes for the large number of officers in the War Office.
It is right to support these remarks by figures, which I have taken from this year's Estimates and the Estimates for 1938. I should like to be fair to the staff and must point out that the Army has now to deal with the National Service men. That is some excuse for an increase, but not of this size. Directors major general—today, 22; in 1938, 15; directors grade B—today, 12; 1938, none; brigadiers—today, 6; 1938, none; deputy directors brigadiers—today, 25: 1938, 5; deputy directors colonels—today, 10; 1938, none; full colonels—today, 12; 1938, none—though I am coming to that—grade one staff officers —today, 172; 1938, 50, but they were all full colonels.
The total of War Office staff on these levels is today 259 and in 1938 it was 70. That is a very big disparity, even taking into account National Service. This is the case not only at the War Office; it has spread right throughout the staff hierarchy of the Army. In 1940 I was brigade major of the 20th Guards Brigade, an independent brigade with no division behind it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, who was Secretary of State for War at the time, may remember. As a matter of fact I think he saved our lives.

Mr. Eden: I made a mistake.

Brigadier Head: A mistake for which my right hon. Friend was not removed from the War Office and anyhow it was less disastrous than the Groundnut Scheme. The point I was about to make is that we had no division behind us and we had seven officers on our staff. The 5th Infantry Brigade of the Second Division of B.A.O.R., with a division behind it, has 14 officers. The number has doubled in ten years.

Mr. Wyatt: Fourteen officers?

Brigadier Head: Yes, 14. That is right, and my figures can be challenged. Let us take Aldershot division. In 1935 that division normally had 11 officers, but I will be fair and say that when it went on manoeuvres and had three brigades brought in, they went up to 20. It was then considered big. But the Second Division in B.A.O.R.—granted they have additional administrative responsibilities in Germany—has 84. That is a lot too many.
The question has not been properly tackled in my opinion. I could go on. At one command headquarters I have a personal friend, a major-general, General Staff—no names, no pack drill—and he has a B.G.S. (Operations), B.G.S. (A. and Q.), General Staff Officer Class 1 (Operations G.S.O.1 (Training), G.S.O.1 (A. and G.S.O.1 Q.). Then there is the G.S.O.2 level and the G.S.O.3 level. Quite a family tree. All he has in his command are a few training establishments and a few odd Territorial units. He is an able man, he likes shooting, and he gets a lot of it.
This sort of thing does need tackling. There is a serious shortage of officers, and it must be dealt with. I know there are difficulties, but there are too many levels, too many people checking other people. There is too much supervision and too little delegation of responsibility. It is fantastic in peace-time and especially now. Able men who did a great job in the war are being checked and supervised, and if the House will bear with me for a moment, I should like to give two instances of this kind of thing.
There is a commanding officer I know who is covered with D.S.O.'s—I must not be too explicit otherwise he might get into trouble. He commanded a brigade with great distinction during the war, and is now commanding a battalion in Germany, where he went recently. There is a rule in B.A.O.R. that you can have 10 per cent. of soldiers' wives out there, living in quarters. This particular commanding officer was under the 10 per cent., and had a quarter and a wife he wanted to put into that quarter. Could he put her in? No. He had to refer it to brigade, from where it went to division and eventually to the Rhine Army, round and round the Rhine Army and back again, with permission. Why could he

not have put the wife in and issued a quarterly or monthly return that he was keeping under his 10 per cent. limit? It is fantastic to think that things are still being referred up and down to goodness knows who. I will read what he wrote to me about another subject; it shows that I am in improper touch with a Regular officer:
Last year, I wanted to move the bar out of my Sergeants' Mess ante-room into a little room alongside to make it just that much less inviting for them to drink too much.
This is a thing which would appeal to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who I notice is not in his place. It was a sensible idea I think. He goes on:
It had to go through the following channels: (1) Garrison Engineer; (2) D.C.R.E.; (3) S.O.R.E.2; (4) C.R.E.; (5) C.E., Division.
He adds:
The ruddy thing' is movable, too.
Does it make sense? There is too much of this checking; and it is not only frustrating to individual officers, but it is duplicating work, increasing the number of officers required and causing a big wastage when officers are in short supply.
I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to institute a really searching inquiry into this question of too many levels, too much supervision, and too many officers on the staff. That is part of the answer to overcome this officer shortage. I entreat him not to leave it too late. Some of us have given lots of tips in the past, and they have not been bad tips, but if I may say so, the Government have never had the full value of putting their money on them because they have left it so late that the odds have shortened and the subsequent benefit has been much smaller.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should treat this particular officer problem as a matter of urgency. The outstanding thing—and I apologise for speaking so much about officers, although I believe it to be the most important single point in the Estimates—is that the right hon. Gentleman has got the best of the young manpower of England, the majority of which is going into the Army. He has an immense amount of money. Sir John Fortescue, who is the Army's best historian, always said that in war time the British nation got a far better Army than it ever deserved and he was of course, referring to the fact that the Army


is habitually starved and under-nourished in peace-time. Today, it is neither starved nor under-nourished, and it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to fulfil the task of constructing a first-class Army, and it is our duty to harass him in every way until he fulfils it. I am sure the House is united in the hope that the task will be fulfilled.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I am sure we all listened with very great pleasure to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). I feel that the Estimates today have been rather a cheering experience. For years we have been told that we have not got an Army, but that we hoped to have one some day. Now, for the first time, we have got it. We have to consider whether mat Army is the right one and fitted for its purpose. Therefore, I am going to ask the House to bear with me a little, while we consider the Russian Army, which it might be called upon to meet, because it is only right in considering the nature of our Army that we should find whether our organisation is right.
The Red Army is a mass Army. It has a tremendous number of divisions. Its divisional slice, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, is 16,000, but that is not the whole story. Its division is about 11,000 as against our 18,000 or 19,000, but the fire-power of the Russian division is equal or superior to ours. Not only is there much less "tail" outside the division, but there is much less "tail" inside the division. Indeed, in the Russian Army rather more than a half—I make it something like 60 per cent.—actually deliver fire. In our Army, the equivalent is one in 10. In the Russian Army, it is rather more than one in two.
That great disparity is accounted for very largely by the fact of the Russian bulk service. For instance, they have no records division at all. There is no record of any individual Russian soldier in the Army. Nobody knows whether he is wounded, killed, or still serving. He is not recorded. He is just an individual. He is just a unit. Again, they have almost no medical services. They have only about one-third of our signals, with the result, of course, that they cannot exercise anything like the tactical control in battle

that our commanders can exercise. They have less than one-third of our transport. Sometimes this may be good, and sometimes it may be bad.
Another service they do without is training. They have very little in the way of training establishments. The Germans were constantly taking prisoners from Russian assault troops in attack whose total service in the Russian Army was two or three days. As the Red Army advanced they impressed people and put them in the front line after two or three days' training. The training they were given was how to use their personal weapon, and the essential lesson that if they went back they would be shot. To those who talk about Malaya, I would point out that a lot of these people were under 18.
The Russian Army during the war was something like 90 per cent. illiterate. Their junior officers and N.C.O's. by our standards, lacked training, intelligence and education. They were entrusted with no initiative whatsoever. Rigid compliance with orders was what was required. Field-Marshal Montgomery had an experience of this. He was asked to dine with Marshal Koniev, but was held up by a sentry. When Marshal Koniev arrived he was also held up. He sent for the officer of the guard, and the sentry was relieved and another replaced him to allow them to go through. It was explained to Field-Marshal Montgomery that no Russian soldier was given two orders, and so the sentry who had been told to let no one through had to be relieved. That is a true story. That is the sort of rigidity with which their army works.
They achieved considerable strategic mobility. They were tough and they improvised, living on the country and impressing the local population as porters. By human porterage they made good a lot of the transport they lacked. In each village it was possible to see a row of people carrying things to the next village, and the people of that village carrying them on to the next. That is the picture of the Russian advance. Although they had strategic mobility, they were incapable of tactical manœuvre. They lacked the training and the command organisation necessary to alter their dispositions under pressure. In attack, they could not depart from the planned manœuvre without falling into confusion. When one


point in the Russian defence went, the whole defence went because they could not readjust their deployment to meet the new emergency.

Mr. G. Thomas: Can we be told whether we are discussing the Russian Army Estimates or the British Army Estimates?

Mr. Paget: I am discussing what we may have to meet. Given time to build up an attack, the Russian attacks carried tremendous power. Mines were no obstacle; they did not bother to clear them. But their attacks carried no element of surprise. They were tremendously vulnerable once they had lost momentum, not because they ran out of supplies but because they lost contact and control. Time and again when their attack lost its momentum it suffered disaster through counter-attack. Indeed, we have seen that happen in Korea in a Communist attack. It came down with power and then it recoiled, because it got into confusion all by itself. When the present counter-offensive by the United Nations forces started, they went on for days without finding the enemy. The enemy had recoiled from nothing, because they had lost their cohesion in the advance.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour recently pointed to the narrow industrial basis upon which this, great number of Russian divisions was based. But the military basis—the basis of maintenance, movement and administration— is even narrower. It is one thing to have 175 divisions; it is another thing to be able to move, maintain and sustain them in active operations. These are things which we have to consider.
The Red Army might be likened to a big clumsy heavyweight. His blows are signalled, his hands are muffled in gloves, and when the blow comes, it carries tremendous power with it, destroying anyone who is foolish to stay in its way. That sort of boxer can be defeated by the little Japanese wrestler, who has control of his limbs and of his fingers. This conception of a small, compact, controlled, lithe and agile force should be the basic conception of our Army. That is not the case today, and that is the complaint which I am making.
In our Army the man who delivers the fire—the gun crews, tank crews and riflemen—represents rather less than 10 per cent. of our total numbers. As I have

already said, the Russian equivalent is 60 per cent. We are essentially a Gideon army, in which the actual fighting is left to a few, but we are still organised as if we were a mass army. The delivery of fire-power, which is the end and object of the whole war effort, is left to a residue. Of course, in the days of Wellington that residue of fire-power was the great majority of the Army. Today it has sunk to 10 per cent., but it is still the "left overs." We do not seem to realise that the men who do the actual fighting are the men on whose performance, quality and morale the whole war effort depends.
Reference has already been made by some hon. Members to the tank section commander, but let us consider the platoon commander. He is not merely the commander of 35 or 40 men, but is the director of the war effort of 1,000 men, 500 in the Army backing up his platoon and another 500 in the mines and factories equipping them. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, I suppose, be shocked if he were told that the director of the war effort of 1,000 men was earning one-third of the pay of a National Health Service dentist. The combat commander ought to be a selected man. He ought to enjoy the pay, privileges and prestige, but on quite a different basis to them, of the R.E.M.E. officer, or the Pay Corps officer, simply because the combat officer bears a much greater responsibility to the nation.
What of the ordinary rifleman? He requires just about the same amount of manpower to support him as the mediaeval knight required in history, but there is this difference between them: the mediaeval knight had to win his spurs, whereas the rifleman is required to have only a negative qualification—insufficient intelligence to be allocated to R.E.M.E. What we must have is a combat rating similar to the air-crew in the Air Force. Combat rating, like that of the air-crew, must be based upon the principle of pay and privilege for the responsibility of delivering the fire-power of the Army. I want to make it quite clear that there is no question of danger money in this proposal. The platoon runner may have just as dangerous a job as the platoon rifleman, but he does not have that responsibility for delivering the fire-power. This must be built up into a combat rating


based on responsibility and it should, in general, be a volunteer rating.
May I digress for a moment to say that this conception of combat personnel in the modern mechanised Army should apply not only to our own Army but to that of Europe? It is fantastic to form Italian divisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), writing the other day, commented that whilst some of us might have some doubts as to which side a German Army might fight on, none of us had any doubts about the Italian Army. It would never fight for anybody. I do not think any of us has any doubts about that. Yet in order to build up these liability troops, we are wasting the productive effort of the American and British people and all the people who are equipping them. That is a lunatic thing to do.
That does not mean for a moment that the Italians cannot make a great contribution to the war effort of Western Europe. They are excellent mechanics, they are just as brave as the rest of us, they make splendid supply troops, but they happen to lack that quality of aggressiveness which goes to make combat troops. We in the West have greater numbers than the East, if we use them; but those numbers are useless if we do not give the right people the right things to do. That is all I have to say about the aspect of combat rating.
I would say a word about the command organisation, on which I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton. Command organisation always tends to grow. We had the great example of that in Sicily. At that time we had Eisenhower's S.H.A.E.F. command, which alone numbered 30,000 men. Below him there was Alexander's command. Below him there were two Army staffs, and then we had five corps staffs—all to handle seven divisions. In Normandy it was not very much better Let us put the contrast to that. When von Manstein was commanding the German Eleventh Army in the Crimea, his army staff was under 100 and his corps staffs were under 20. Yet nobody could say that the Germans did not exercise effective command control.
Again, take the question of supplies. If we are to be mobile and active, that

must be considered. It must be considered in the light of what we can possibly do without, what we cannot risk finding in the country where we are campaigning or on the field of battle. The attitude of what we can do without must replace the staff-minded attitude which always is for having everything that could possibly be wanted and hanging it on the wretched soldier. Scharnhorst, a great staff officer, once said that every infantry man should carry an axe because he might want to break down a door. That always seems to me to be the perfect example of the staff mentality. They never seem to realise that everything one hangs on to a soldier is at the expense of the one commodity which is likely to run out, and that is human energy.
I remember in the last war an airborne section which had to give ground for lack of ammunition, but I never found any formation having to give ground for lack of food and water. Yet how many failed in their tasks from sheer exhaustion, from having to carry two hundred rounds of ammunition and three days' rations, when the average amount of ammunition used in a day in battle is 10 rounds? Nowadays, supplies can be brought up by jeep or by aircraft.
Under the influence of fear—and everyone in battle experiences fear—the working of the adrenal gland, when a man is frightened, has much the same effect on human muscles as extreme exhaustion. There is the example of American troops who, landing on the beachhead at Omaha, collapsed under the weight of their packs on the sand, and were drowned by the incoming tide. Under the influence of fear they could not move with the weight. That is an extreme example, but it happened, and it is something we should bear in mind. Any scientist who can invent a pill to control the adrenal gland may find that he has done more to increase the war potential of his country than the inventor of the atom bomb, because he would just about have doubled the fighting power of the Army.
But this Scharnhorst idea goes on. For instance, cooks and runners are still required to carry rifles and ammunition. Of course, they may have to fight—true enough—but by the time they get into the fighting there will be plenty of rifles and ammunition lying about whose owners


have no further use of them. Philip of Macedon's Hypastides, the Scots at Banockburn "walking light as air" because gillies and porters carried their weapons, the Light Brigade in the Peninsular War, all found this of great importance. But, always the staff comes in and begins to load up the soldier.
And what goes for the human animal goes just as much for vehicles. They pile on anything which might be needed, from refrigerators upwards; and the result is that one blocks up the roads so that nothing can move. That was the fundamental mistake in Korea. The Americans were not beaten by superior numbers of Chinese, and they were not held later for that reason, nor can they be, on the communications available to the Chinese. They were beaten by superior mobility. The Americans lost their mobility of supplies, and the Chinese, who still remember how to use their legs, beat them. How much transport can we do without? Twenty per cent. may be a good start, but it must improve.
Another thing is that we should learn to live off the land where we find ourselves. One of the first things we ought to do is to set up an organisation in Germany, where we might have to campaign, which would be responsible for knowing and informing the Army of the location of all civilian food and fuel supplies in an area where the Army might move. We ought to have exercises in which we move our troops without carrying food, leaving them to buy that in the districts through which they pass. That is how the Russians worked it, and we shall have to see to what extent transport can be saved and, what is more important, the blocking of roads and communications can be avoided.
Here are three general problems, the question of combat personnel being no longer a residue, the question of command, and the question of supply. I would ask my right hon. Friend—and this is the burden of my speech—to set up a committee similar to that set up by Lord Haldane, under Lord Esher, to consider the necessary reorganisation of the Army. I would say that this committee should essentially have a civilian chairman, because it is a fact that the Army has never been willing to reform itself, and that you can never get soldiers to slash establishments. You must have a civilian chairman. That committee

should take advantage not only of British opinion, but of expert German knowledge. After all, Germany had a pretty good army, and that army had experience of fighting the sort of war for which we have to prepare. We hope that that war will not happen, but we have to prepare for it. That experience and knowledge should be made available, and should be considered by such a committee.
Service chiefs have a technique for dealing with a civilian Minister. He is flattered. He is made to feel that he is the head of a great service. He is made to feel that he is an initiate, and his ego is inflated by that sense of initiation. His conceit is enlarged by the contempt with which his Service chiefs treat the opinions of his critics. These critics are treated as though they do not understand, as though they do not know. "We, the initiates, are the ones who know what common sense is," they hint. Thus, subtly, the Minister is led on to dispose of non-technical opinion. When he has done that, he has lost the foundation for any opinions of his own which he might be tempted to have.
One has seen that happen. The Minister becomes the mere trumpet of his technicians. It is only exceptional Ministers, such as a Haldane or a Churchill, who are able to confine their Service chiefs to their technical functions. Such Ministers enjoy the real respect of their Service chiefs. I hope my right hon. Friend will be among their number, and that he will insist upon the reforms which are as necessary now as they were in Haldane's day. He has proved himself to be a very good Minister, both at the Air Ministry and in his present office. The Party opposite never did a greater disservice to this country than when it hounded Haldane from office by vile personal attacks. Let it not repeat that effort.

12 m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: We have listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). That is nothing new, because he always does make interesting speeches in debates on the Army Estimates and on defence. I agree with a great deal of what he has said, and I shall be touching upon some of the things he mentioned during the course of my speech. I disagree in part


with one thing he said—his reference to the Italian Army. There are of course Italians who would be better employed on lines of communication, but do not let us forget that there have been and are some very fine fighting divisions from the north of Italy.
It is very difficult at this late hour to say anything new, and to a large extent I shall be emphasising what has already been said, with other examples. I divide my remarks under the headings of manpower and equipment.I want straightaway to do as others have done, and that is to attack the War Office. This is the time to do what other right hon. Gentleman would have liked to do if there had not been a war on our hands. I believe the right hon. Gentleman should set up a commission of inquiry to go into the whole of the organisation of the War Office, and I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member that there should be a civilian chairman and, if necessary, a German staff officer to give us the benefit of their experience.
Let us remember that the War Office organisation started on a ration box under a tent; it has been built up from that over the years. It would give any really high-class business man a fit if he went into that office and saw how things are run. The duplication that goes on is fantastic, as is the refusal to delegate responsibility without having somebody else, almost like a Gestapo, watching to see that a person does not overstep by 6d. when he has under his charge vast amounts of equipment and money.
An appalling habit has grown up in the Army, not only in the War Office but in staffs. When a staff officer has been given a job to do, in five minutes he has collected another staff officer and a couple of clerks to help him. Before you know where you are he has set up another department and made himself essential so that he cannot be got rid of easily. I know of a specific example of that occurring in the War Office within the last six or eight weeks.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), who so ably did the job of B.G.S. to a corps in Italy, can give an example of how that corps H.Q. was increased after the war by about 2½ per cent., although one would have thought it would have been

reduced. That has been going on all over the country. I want to add my plea to that of others. Something must be done. The figures given by the hon. and learned Member of the German H.Qs. are perfectly true. They operated their corps H.Qs. on a staff of 20, and I should imagine our corps H.Qs. are somewhere in the region of 150 or 180. I have forgotten for the moment what the numbers of my brigade H.Q. were, but I know there were a lot too many people running about the place.
Then there is this question of the shortage of officers. I have only one remark to add. It is essential to make up to people, and not only officers, some of the "perks" they have lost through the disappearance of the horse from the Army. Something should be done to amuse them in their spare time. But there is another point to which the right hon. Gentleman should pay particular attention. A supporter of his Government, a member of the teaching profession, put this to me: "Can you explain why all my bright boys who have joined the Army are made either clerks or sent to the Army Education Corps? Do the fighting units not want any intelligent people at all?" That is very largely true. It is a fact that wants watching very carefully.
Manpower in the Army is stretched to the limit. There are large numbers of men in the pipe-line because we are so widely dispersed. There are large numbers whose time is occupied at base installations. I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) about the recruitment of colonial forces not only because they are required to assist our manpower, but for their own good as well. I hope that decisions will be reached soon about the manpower in colonial territories. There are in East Africa men who, properly led, could be just as good as their counterparts in the Indian divisions which we have now lost. Provided that the reason why is put to them, they would be fighting as well in Malaya as any of the Indian troops fought in the last war.
I want to say a word about the Home Guard. I hope that after the Recess we shall be able to have a fuller Debate on this subject. I do not accept the pretext given by a noble Lord in another place, as one of the chief reasons for not embodying the Home Guard in any form,


that it would be an intolerable commitment on the Regular commands. That was casting his mind back to what happened in 1940. We are not in the same situation now, because we have experienced Home Guard men who are quite capable of taking over the training, and in addition we have men who fought in the Army who will be too old to be called up but could easily serve as instructors for the Home Guard.
I want to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said in regard to the formation of a cadre. It is vital, to avoid all the enormous difficulties experienced at the beginning of the last conflict, that a cadre should be recruited forthwith, and that others should be informed that if they are willing they will be considered as potential members of the Home Guard.
It is particularly vital in view of the possibility of airborne invasion. We must not forget that the Russians were playing with airborne mass landings before the last war. They have vast quantities of aircraft. Let the right hon. Gendeman be prepared for the argument, generally put over by a staff officer, that we cannot land airborne troops unless they can be immediately supplied and reinforced. That is a valid argument if we are dropping in enemy territory. It is not valid in a country such as this country at the moment. It matters not the least to our potential enemy that the whole of his force is wiped out. They have German officers as their advisers. They will see that Napoleon, the Kaiser, and Hitler failed because they did not occupy this island.
It is our bounden duty to make it impossible for any airborne landing to survive its period of weakness during the first 48 hours. If they know we are prepared to eliminate them in the first 48 hours, they will not come. It would not be difficult to arrange that, by dispersal of arms and recruitment of a Home Guard mobile column. But there is a grave temptation if matters are left as they are at this moment. I trust these words and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has said will be taken to heart and that something will be done to recruit the Home Guard at the earliest possible moment.
I now wish to refer to equipment. If we are to grapple with superior numbers, we must have three things: a high standard in training in tactical manoeuvre, a withering firing power and extreme mobility. Is the present Army being organised on that basis or not? Is there any suggestion for issuing a quick-firing carbine to the infantry in place of the old rifle? If, for security reasons, the right hon. Gentleman does not care to reply to that, I do not mind, but I hope he will make inquiries and, if it is a question of coming to a decision, then for Heaven's sake come to a decision and get them issued to the troops.
I hope he will make inquiries in regard to multiple rocket launching. Again, if it is a question of decision, I hope a decision will be arrived at at an early date. If a decision has been reached, how soon can we hope to see them issued?
The other day I asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question about the medium machine gun. From a picture I saw in a magazine I understand that there is such a thing as a modern medium machine gun, and that the infantry are reluctant to accept it until they are certain it is as reliable as the Vickers. It is time we had a lighter machine gun. I do not know whether anybody can remember what it is like to hump the tripod of a Vickers. I wonder if we cannot have a machine gun which is just as reliable as the Vickers, a machine gun which has no stoppages and can be easily humped from one place to another.
In regard to the infantry weapon, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will resist the argument of the average staff officer, that if we give the infantry too many quick-firing weapons, we shall not be able to supply them with ammunition. We shall not of course be able to supply them with ammunition if we go on using the old-fashioned methods. If our enemy has paramount air power, we should not be able to have streams of lorries on the roads, as we had in the latter days of the war in Italy and other countries where there was no enemy air power. There is such a thing as the air drop, and we have been foremost in the field in regard to air supply. I believe that the difficulties of soft vehicles, bad roads and air attack can be solved by night drops from the air. I think this is vital; otherwise we should not be able to contend with the


preponderance in numbers with which we might be faced in any future war.
I want to emphasise what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) said about soft vehicles. Apart from jeeps, are we producing good new soft vehicles? Have we arranged about the interchangeability of spare parts? This has been under discussion, to my knowledge, for seven or eight years, and it is time somebody arrived at some conclusion about it and something was done.
As to training, it is no good senior officers imagining that all that has to be done is to produce large quantities of soft vehicles and tell the infantry they are available and then expect the infantry to get into them and move at speed. They must be trained first. When I had the good fortune to train a brigade in England, and had time to do it, we were able to move infantry and be in the vehicles and on the road within 20 minutes of the order being given. I was given a battalion in the Italian campaign which I was told would be moved by lorry on my order. I gave the order. They "embussed" and moved off, but it took them five hours to get on to the road. That is the difference between thinking you have what you want and ensuring that you have it. It is essential to have the vehicles at the time of training and the men must have the highest possible type of training in these vehicles.
We want to get the infantry division trained to move, to "debuss," "embuss" and change position in the same way as the motor battalions were trained during the war. There will be tremendous objection from certain high-ranking infantry commanders to a remark such as this. But I am certain that unless it is done and the infantry is made far more mobile than it has been in the past, unless it is given overwhelming superiority in fire power and has what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington suggested, an armoured assault vehicle to get it to the objective through areas drenched by heavy defensive fire, it will not be possible to compete with the vast numbers we might have to meet.
I happened to have had the good fortune to experiment with the first "degutted" Sherman tank, known as "Kangaroo." In the first action in which they were

used we had two battalions carried forward, and we only suffered two casualties out of those two battalions, and they were only wounded. They were drenched by mortar fire and D.F. artillery, but there was not a man scratched. They were carried to the objective at the speed of the tank. They did not have to wait for us, nor we for them, and the tank moved at a speed compatible with the terrain. I would like to know whether there is such a machine in production now, and, if not, why not. These are subjects dear to our hearts, and I apologise to the House for having spoken so long.
The right hon. Gentleman has in his hands the making—though not entirely— or the marring of the finest fighting material in the world. There is no greater fighter than the British soldier, but he must be properly led. It is vital to fill the gap in officer material, and everything in the power of the Secretary of State must be done to achieve this. I hope that this money we are spending will be well spent, that every penny will be scrutinised, and that material will not be bought to be sold again to other Powers if it is not surplus to establishment. Let us not forget that establishments are altering quickly. All of us would like to know that the right hon. Gentleman is making searching inquiries into the sale of Government equipment. I hope he will realise that he will get support, not only from this House but from the nation and the British Army, if he makes it abundantly clear that he is fighting for the ordinary private soldier who is to undergo the greatest strain to which any human being can be subjected.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I trust my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I do not follow him, because the hour is late and I want to address myself to only two points. The first is the question of getting officers, which the Secretary of State says is such a difficult problem today. I believe the fundamental question is that of pensions when they leave the service. I was a Regular soldier for 12 years before the war and I meet officers in the Service clubs and so on. They point out to me that the pension of a substantive lieut.-colonel today is, as it was before the war, £600 a year gross. They point out, as my hon. and gallant Friend the


Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) suggested, that before the war, by the time their families were educated, they could live quietly in the country and "get by," on a pension of £600 a year. But they cannot do that today.
Today, the cost of living having gone up so much and with taxation much higher, they are financially, on their pensions, in much the same position as a skilled workman living in a council house in receipt of perhaps £8 or £9 a week net wages. That is the equivalent. How can one expect a parent to send his boy to Sandhurst when he knows that if he makes good—and it is only the exceptional officer who can ever hope to reach the position of substantive lieut.-colonel—he has the prospect of being retired at the age of 45 or 50 on the equivalent of £8 or £9 a week.
I look at it now as a parent. My father, my grandfather, my great grandfather spent all their lives as Regular soldiers. I started mine in that career. I have two boys. Am I going to put my sons in the Army under these conditions? If they are clever enough, as I hope they will be, they will do something better than become Regular soldiers. If they do not prove themselves sufficiently clever, I shall have to put them in the Army as I was put myself. It is a very sad point of view for a parent who wishes the Army nothing but well, but I think that is the opinion one is forced to take.
I now want to address myself to the second of my two points, of which I gave the Secretary of State notice. This is the question of awards for gallantry, with special reference to Korea. I trust the House will not say this is a very unimportant matter and that it is wasting the time of the House to raise it at this hour. It is, however, particularly concerned with the question of morale, and as everybody who knows anything about the Services agrees, morale is all-important. I think it was Napoleon, or someone who was a very much better soldier than me, who said that morale is as to material in war, as about five to one.
It is quite obvious that something has gone very far wrong. The information I have received in answer to Questions and information that the Under-Secretary has been good enough to get me, shows an

astounding thing today. After eight months fighting, with over 600 casualties, only two men in the ranks have received awards for gallantry in Korea. One warrant officer has received the Military Medal and one corporal has received the Military Medal. One knows, if one has had any experience in these matters, that to have a few men wearing decorations for gallantry is enormously appreciated in a unit, and is a great encouragement and a great spur to other individuals to do likewise.
What is so scandalous is that the officers have got decorations but not the men. Two battalion commanders as long as three months ago—two lieut.-colonels —have received the D.S.O. Perhaps as I was a battalion commander and received this award myself, I might be permitted to say that it is quite wrong that battalion commanders should get awards for decorations, and company commanders and other officers, if similar awards do not percolate to the men in the ranks. Every senior regimental officer who has received an award knows that it is only by the gallantry of the men under him that he has been able to qualify for it. I remember the difficulties we used to have in the last war in getting awards for men in the ranks. The recommendations were put in, but by the time they had been considered and the award had come out, the man concerned had either died or had been wounded and left the unit, so to all intents and purposes the result was that he did not get it.
I remember the embarrassment we officers felt in going round wearing these ribbons when the men did not seem to be getting their decorations. We felt that they thought we used to write citations about each other and did not look after the deserts of the men. Why is it that from the information I have received from the Under-Secretary, 16 men have been recommended for the awards of the D.C.M. and the M.M. but only four have been given, and no decision has so far been made about the others? The Under-Secretary states that, in the case of one brigade, four recommendations are still awaited at the War Office. In the case of the other brigade, where 15 officers and other ranks have been recommended, he states that none of these recommendations has reached the War Office. For Heaven's sake, has not the Commander-in-Chief on the spot power to make these


Awards? Why have they to go to the War Office? It is a crying scandal.
I asked the length of time it took for the decision to be made in the case of an officer who on 19th February, according to the Under-Secretary, was awarded the Military Cross for a deed that took place on 22nd September last. I really think it is a positive scandal that these decorations do not come through until the men are perhaps dead or have gone home. Why cannot the Commander-in-Chief make the decision on the spot within a matter of weeks or a month? It is a positive scandal that after eight months no soldier in the ranks, except in the two cases I have mentioned, has received an award for gallantry, while two battalion commanders have got the D.S.O. and two other officers the M.C. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter.

12.30 a.m.

Lord John Hope: I want to say something in defence of the man who has been under fire from both sides of the House, the staff officer. Nothing I shall say will in any way conflict with the thoroughly justified condemnation of what is going on, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) and by others on both sides. It would be a great pity, however, if this debate came to an end without this matter of the staff officer being dealt with in its proper proportion. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton, in his brilliant speech, said something with which we all agree—that the private soldier, although he is the man who wins battles, cannot do so unless he is well led. I would go further and say that he cannot win unless he is well staffed.
With that in mind, I want to ask the Secretary of State whether anything has been thought out in terms of refresher courses for reservist staff officers. I believe that such courses would be most valuable; otherwise it may be the case, if and when there is a rapid expansion of the Army in terms of new divisions, that there will not be the staff trained to staff these divisions, which could easily lead to disaster. After all, a good staff can make troops that are not absolutely top-notch win battles, but no troops, however good, can win battles if the staff work is bad.
It is a sad thing how easily and quickly the gap between the regimental soldier and the staff officer widens. There was distinctly bad feeling between the two at the beginning of the last war. I know that quite well, because I was a regimental officer at the time and thought nothing of the staff which I considered was making bad plans to my detriment. Later on, when a staff officer myself, I realised how misguided I had been in those earlier years. This thing is not new, and even at this late hour I hope the House will forgive me if I remind them that even as long ago as Shakespeare's time staff officers came in for criticism. In Henry IV we find this:
… for he made me mad,
To see him shine so brisk, and smell so sweet,
And talk so like a waiting-gentlewoman
Of guns and drums…and but for these vile guns
He would himself have been a soldier.
That idea of the staff officer still exists, and it is with that in view that I ask whether any steps are being taken to see, if this nation is called upon to spring suddenly to arms, that her fighting formations are going to be as well staffed as they possibly can be.
I want to make one other suggestion to the Minister in this connection. Would it not be possible to look into the question of staff initials? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) quite rightly mentioned the benefits that would accrue from the standardisation of armaments between the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I would suggest that this also applies to a parallel staff organisation. From my own experience I know that our own staff designations are so complicated as to make the whole business of staff co-operation needlessly difficult. Starting from the departments of A.G. and Q.M.G, we get a whole complexity of initials. There is a D.A. and and Q.M.G. and A.A. and Q.M.G. Then we have D.A.A. and Q.M.G. and D.A.Q.M.G.—I was one myself—and D.A.A.G. There are plenty more. The system is very cumbersome and difficult for an American staff, for instance to understand. It is worth looking into to see if it can be improved.
In conclusion, I want to refer to something which happened in the House last Tuesday. I have given the Secretary of


State notice that I felt I ought to raise this issue, but I do not do so in a cantankerous way. I think it is a pity that at Question Time on Tuesday the Secretary of State found it necessary to take cover behind what he called his "advisers." The House will recall the occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked Questions by several hon. Members about the policy of young boys being sent to fight in Malaya. In two columns of HANSARD it is recorded that on no fewer than four occasions the Secretary of State "passed the buck" to his military advisers.
I will give examples:
The number of months training I will certainly consider with my military advisers, but they are convinced that the present regulations are correct.
A moment later he said:
I think it is a question of training rather than of age. I repeat that we certainly must not send men abroad who are inadequately trained, and that my advisers are confident that that is not being done.
A little later he said:
We can consider this matter, but it is the firm view of my advisers that this is an adequate basic training.
On the fourth occasion he said:
I think the matter is rather one of training than of age, but I am advised that the training is thoroughly adequate for the purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 226–7.]
I know that the right hon. Gentleman's advisers are there to advise him, but the point is—and the Secretary of State knows it perfectly well—that the Minister is the man who has to take responsibility. I do not know whether it is a good thing or not for this House to be told what the Service advisers have said. I think it is probably wrong that the House should be told it, for obvious reasons. The House will no doubt recall that we were not told what advice the Government had been given in the matter of conscription, when they made that muddle, ordering first one period and then another. If we are to be told what advice the Service advisers have given when it is convenient for the Minister to accept it, then let us also be given details when the Minister has rejected the advice of his Service advisers. On the whole, however, I think it is better to avoid mentioning people who cannot speak for themselves.
Although according to the letter of the law the Secretary of State could say he was justified in using those sentences, he knows as well as I that the effect of saying continually, "My advisers 'agree with me about this," or "My advisers say this," inevitably suggests to the House that he is in the hands of his advisers. It is a pity for a Minister ever to do that. It is particularly unfortunate when that Minister is at the head of a Service whose basic and fundamental tradition is that where responsibility lies, it must be fairly and fully accepted, without qualification, for good or for ill.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is no criticism of the military machine that I can make in this debate which would be more devastating than that which has been made by people who apparently have given their lives to the military machine and who know it from the inside. I know nothing that could be regarded as less likely to bring recruits to the British Army than a copy of HANSARD reporting speech after speech of hon. and gallant Members who know the Army and who have given us such descriptions of it in this debate.
The Duke of Wellington, who has been quoted rather frequently in the debate, once referred to the military profession as a "damnable profession." I have come to the conclusion that it is also incompetent, for that was the substance of the very able speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). If one-tenth of the argument he adduced is right, then we are governed at present, at the top, by a bureaucracy and oligarchy bound up by red tape, which cannot make decisions and is apparently incapable of running the gigantic machine on which we are spending—or being asked to spend—£305 million.
If the picture presented by the hon. and gallant Member is right, then we do not deserve to have any recruits. It used to be said that the fool of the family went into the Church, but one hon. Member thought tonight that the fool of the family now went into the Army. We have had some very candid views from hon. Members opposite who have spent many years of their lives in the Army, and because of their arguments we ought to think twice before handing over this gigantic sum of £305 million. We are


asked tonight, "How are we to get more recruits?" and in that connection I would remind the House that in previous debates here I have tried to argue that, in the post-war years, this problem would be insoluble. We cannot get recruits so soon after a big war, especially at a time when there is full employment in the country.
I do not want to be accused of saying, "I told you so," but it is true that the prophecies I have made in four successive debates each year on this recruiting problem have proved correct. We shall not solve this problem because people do not like the Army any more; they are not attracted to the military machine now; the ordinary man shuns the imbecility of modern war. That is why the recruiting campaigns have not succeeded, and are not likely to succeed.

Major Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Member believes that proposition, how does he reconcile it with the fact that when the pay went up the recruiting rate more than doubled?

Mr. Hughes: The recruiting figures may have doubled, but, double or not, one can double a figure which is so small as to be ridiculous. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What are the figures?"] I have asked for the figures, and cannot get them, but I suggest that if the recruits were pouring in as a result of the increased pay, we should have heard of the fact by way of voluminous reports; and those we have not had from the Secretary for War.
But I have some figures which I will give to the House. An hon. Member who complained of the lack of recruits said there was a slump in recruiting following the invasion of Korea. Is there any wonder? The recruiting figures relating to Korea prove that my argument is correct; because the number of Regular reservists who volunteered for service in Korea amounted to about 1,500. The number of soldiers—men who know what war is—who have had the opportunity of volunteering, and are now in Korea, is about 1,030. I say that all the efforts to attract men into the military machine have, so far, been unsuccessful.
I believe that I am putting my finger on this when I say that in the world today there is a feeling of horror and revulsion against modern war and against the stupidity of the whole business. That

is the real reason why there are not the recruits needed. The right hon. and gallant Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) put forward a proposition which I think ought immediately to be rejected. It was that we should let more miners go into the Army.

Mr. Bellenger: That was not my point. I suggested that those hon. Members who are urging that miners should come out of the Army ought not to succeed, because I believe that the miner should be free to choose his employment—the Army or the coal mines.

Mr. Hughes: If that is the argument my right hon. Friend suggested, I am sorry if I misrepresented him; but are men in the Army to be allowed to volunteer to come out to enter not only mining, but every other industry? If conscripts, and all others in the Army, were given the right to come out, the Army would not exist very long. When recruits were wanted for the mining industry, the argument was that the miner should be freed and allowed an opportunity of knowing that in doing so he would not be changing his job. Why not try that on the Army? Why not give the ordinary soldier the right which Members of Parliament have, if they do not like their job, of applying for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds and getting out within 24 hours? After listening to some of these debates, I am often tempted to do so myself.
I put this proposition to the House. If hon. Members believe in liberty and democracy, give soldiers the opportunity to get out of the Army, as apparently the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw wants them to get out of the mines. The conscript Army is forced labour.

Mr. Logan: I will lay odds that the hon. Member does not apply for the Chiltern Hundreds.

Mr. Hughes: The idea of allowing a soldier to get out by, as it were, accepting the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, may not be possible, but why not allow him to get out on a fortnight's or a month's notice? That would probably be the most popular thing ever done for the Army. I submit that the proposition which I have made is at least as constructive as any proposal advanced from the other side of the Chamber.
Now I come to the question of Korea, because over and over again we have had Questions about soldiers for Korea. What are they going to Korea for? Presumably they went to liberate the Koreans, as a great experiment in collective security. I wonder in what conditions our British soldiers are fighting in Korea today. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw that we ought to send a Parliamentary delegation to Korea to find out what is going on, although I do not want to be included in that delegation. I shall be content to accept the evidence of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite.
After a long campaign in Korea, this is what we read from the correspondent on the central front of the "New York Times":
Vast United Nations damge raises the the koreans' ire
Destruction of homes by fire power of Allies viewed as causing goodwill loss
Razing held unnecessary Civilians: some troops believe more discrimination could be used on targets.

Mr. Follick: Does the hon. Member understand that?

Mr. Hughes: The Koreans do. We are told that large-scale destruction in Korea, most of it resulting from the tremendous firepower of planes and guns, is robbing the United Nations of some of the good will it had with the Koreans. I have here a quotation from General MacArthur himself, as reported by Donald Kingsley, who is the United Nations Agent-General for Relief in Korea. He says that the Korean landscape was the most devastated and that its refugees were the most destitute in the history of modern warfare and goes on:
General Douglas MacArthur told me personally that in his whole experience of war he had never seen such destruction. Some of northern Korea has been fought over three or four times. I have seen a lot of refugees in my time, but I have never seen anything more destitute and pitiful than the 3,500,000 homeless in Korea.
What is the position in Korea today? A fortnight ago the Minister of Defence left us with the impression that we were the masters in Korea. The day before yesterday General MacArthur…

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the war in Korea. We are discussing the Army Estimates and not the war in Korea.

Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, although throughout this debate repeated references have been made to Korea.

Mr. Speaker: Only references to our own participation in the war, not the war as a whole.

Mr. Hughes: I presume that our Forces are under the supreme command of General MacArthur and I was describing the conditions under which our soldiers are being asked to participate at present. All this affects the morale of the British soldier. These conditions the British soldier sees around him, and, after all, the British soldier reads the New York papers.
We are told that famine hangs over Korea, that there will be no rice unless three million refugees return to the land, that the country is in a terrific mess. So I submit that our military activity in Korea, which is being paid for, presumably, out of these Estimates, is a military activity which has ended in stalemate, that it should come to an end, and that the Government should bring the soldiers home from Korea and realise that the whole thing has been a failure and a fraud.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Army Estimates. That has to do with foreign policy. Government policy as a whole has nothing to do with the Army Estimates.

Mr. Hughes: Then I will leave Korea, and I only wish that the Scots soldiers could leave it as easily as I shall.
I want to turn to Malaya, because only this week there is a report of a Scottish regiment that is being sent out there. It is headed, "The Gay Gordons leave Glasgow for Malaya." Presumably, they will be paid out of the Army Estimates.
I entirely agree with the criticism of sending boys under 19 to the war. The Secretary of State has not faced the human problem when he says that he has acted on the advice of his advisers. That is not good enough. I would like to know how old these advisers are. I have a report of one of the soldiers being sent out at 17½ It is true that he is called a bandsman, but even if the warfare in Malaya is grim, we do not want to send bandsmen of 17½ out there. This report


says how the so-called "Gay Gordons" were sent through the streets of Glasgow between three and four o'clock in the morning. They were not sent in the old way, with people cheering the troops, but quietly, in the early morning, because of the impression it would create.
There is no opinion in favour of continuing the war in Malaya, or of sending out people of 18 and 19. It is not for the Opposition to be so self-righteous about this. I remember a military guard room in another war, and boys of 17 chained together to be sent to France. Hon. Members opposite have no moral justification in criticising the Secretary of State, because if they had had the handling of the situation they would have done precisely the same thing. To vote £305 million at the present time is not the will of the country. If a Gallup poll were held on this matter I do not believe that we would be able to carry on the war in Korea. In granting this huge sum the House is not acting with a due sense of responsibility, and we are not justified in passing these Estimates as they are.

12.57 a.m.

Brigadier T. H. Clarke: I believe both sides of the House will join with me in paying tribute to the two brigades in Korea for their gallantry and courage, and for the excellent way in which they have fought, according to the reports we have had. I do not think speeches such as we have just had are likely to encourage the men who are fighting out there. For the fact that there are these young men fighting in Korea and Malaya I put the entire blame on the Government. If they had followed the advice of this side of the House, which has been given since 1945, and paid the Regular soldier a decent wage a good deal earlier, we should not have had to send boys 18 and 19. The blame rests on that side of the House.
If, however, we have to send these boys out there, at least the Minister should see that they are reasonably well looked after. The National Service soldier should have the same rate of pay as the Regular soldier fighting alongside him. We on this side have said this many times. Will the Minister look into it again, and see that the two classes of men fighting side by side do receive the same rate of pay?
I raised the question of the price of tea in Korea and was told by the Minister that five pints of tea were provided per day, double the ration of the civilian in this country. That may be true, but the Minister knows that the soldier spends a certain amount of his time drinking tea in canteens, when off duty and on leave, and he does not get it free. If the N.A.A.F.I. have to pay 6s. a lb. for tea, he has to pay for his tea at least double what it would cost in a N.A.A.F.I. in England. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office to see that prices in Korea are the same as in Hong Kong. The troops in Hong Kong get a special allowance which helps them to pay the inflated prices which rule there. Those fighting in Korea should get that allowance along with the men sitting doing less in Hong Kong. I think the Minister would be well advised to give them that.
The soldier who has left his wife behind in Hong Kong and gone to Korea finds himself drawing single rate of lodging allowance. The flat in which he left his wife costs him just as much as it did when he was living in it, and flats and houses in Hong Kong are renting at inflated prices. Because a man goes to Korea to fight, it is unfair that the should be worse off financially. I do not think anybody, not even hon. Members on the other side, would ask a soldier to fight for his country for less money than is paid to a man sitting in Hong Kong.
After great pressure from both sides of the House at Christmas—[Interruption.]All right; I shall be fair when it is necessary to be fair—the Postmaster-General agreed to give the troops cheap parcels rates for Christmas. That dried up very soon afterwards. Now, if a mother wants to send her son, or a wife her husband, a cake, it costs 30s. to send a 2 lb. cake to Korea by air. It is not much good sending it round by the Red Sea and Ceylon. The Minister should try to find some idea better than sending out £2 postal orders I am sure a soldier sitting in a fox hole could tell the Minister what to do with his postal orders!
The Government called a limited number of reservists, but it was not until after continual pressure from this side that we got any idea of how long these men were to serve. The Government always do these things too late—devaluation and all the errors the Government have made since 1945, and this improved


plan, which is many months too late. When the Government decided upon the period for which the reservists were to be called up, they should have told the country. Why were the wives and mothers left in concern until they were told in January, when they could have been told back in September? [Interruption.]I shall make my speech in my own way. [HON. MEMBER: "Go on!"] If hon. Members are tired, let them go to bed. There are a few things on my notes which I should like to mention, but I will refrain from doing so. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will bear with me because there are things I could say which they would not like at all.
I see that 180,000 notices were sent out to supplementary reservists but only 394 have joined up. I should like the Secretary of State to tell us what inducements were offered. We got plenty of supplementary reservists before the war, and I suggest that he increases the incentive to bring in the men. We need supplementary reservists. They are men who in peacetime can do their normal peace-time job, but who in war-time have an obligation to come and join up. It only costs a small sum of money to make them sign on the dotted line. I understand that, so far, only officer types have been recruited, and it is high time the Government tried to get some soldiers to join. We have heard so much denigration of officers from the other side that it is surprising that any officers join the Army at all.
The new pay conditions have been lauded by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Personally I do not agree that they are anything like enough. By the time Income Tax is deducted the soldier gets very little indeed, and it is a mistake to believe that is going to increase recruiting any more than it has to date: The thing that is required is better pensions, not only for the soldier who is leaving the Army today, tomorrow or the next day or next year, but for the man who left in 1939.—[Interruption.]—No, I am not asking for any pension myself. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well there was a cut in pensions in 1931 and that the cost of living has since gone up, but they have done nothing at all to alter the pension rates.
There are many officers in clubs in London today—[HON. MEMBERS: "White's."]—who are finding it difficult

to make ends meet. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very tired, and I shall try to confine my remarks to a few points, in the Estimates it is stated that the health in the Army has been very good. I have not heard a word about it. Certain soldiers are suffering from skin diseases, and very serious skin diseases they are for young boys of 18 to have. I hope the Secretary of State will look into this matter and see whether there is not something he can do to prevent young men from contracting these skin diseases. Perhaps the Minister has not read what is written in paragraph 32—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."]—I would sooner not quote it because ladies are present.
We have had a lot of talk about encouraging soldiers to join the Army and about what does not encourage them to do so. I would draw attention to a rag called "Labour's Southern Voice." I have drawn the attention of the Attorney-General to it. It is seditious and is a Labour Party paper. This is what it says:
Why has the recruitment of the regular soldiers failed so abjectly? Hundreds of lads at Catterick can give a hundred reasons. What are the reasons for the desertions and the suicides and attempted suicides?
That is what is going on in Catterick, according to this paper.
The figures may stagger the old folks at home whose sons, pitch-forked out of their jobs and homes to be shoved around by their intellectual superiors"—
I hope Members opposite do not believe that to be true—
under an antiquated system based on fear and class distinction.
Again I would point out that this is a Labour Party paper. It goes on:
The interminable polishing and burnishing, which only infuriates intelligent men should be stamped out. If we must needs conscript our youth, let us seek their cooperation in a common cause by methods of 1951 rather than those of the Crimean War. Military might, as we have seen, is apt to ride, booted and spurred, over the very instructions of Governments. These people must be brought to heel and taught that they are the servants of democracy along with the most humble of working-class conscripts, bewildered and bewitched.
[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but how do they like this?
There is plenty of fun at Catterick, except for the recruit who does not really matter much. The little officer on the range is about 19 summers and loves to switch the prone


rifleman across the legs. When inevitably some goaded signalman will arise and fall upon this pleasant gentleman, then we shall see the application of King's Rules and Regulations where a private soldier is hauled before his officer and tried before officers and condemned by officers, a flat negation of the elementary principles of justice since Magna Carta.
Is that the idea Members opposite have of encouraging people to join the Army? I hope that the Attorney-General will do something about it. Members opposite should be ashamed of this rag being put out as a Socialist recruiting organ.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I want to put only two points to the Government, which I think are points of substance and will perhaps win general agreement. For my first point, I should like to follow fairly closely what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands (Lord John Hope), who raised the most important question of staffing the Army. One needs a certain amount of luck in wartime, and by far the most fortunate thing that happened to me was to be appointed, when I came out of the Staff College, to the 50th Northumbrian Division as their D.A.G.M.G. The 50th Northumbrian Division was a Territorial division formed to a great extent from Durham miners, and it was in my view by far the best administered and best commanded division in the British Army. People who were in other divisions differ from me, and it is only proper that I should continue to hold my views on the subject.
I should like to say what has happened to some of the outstanding Territorial officers on the administrative staff of the division, because I think we are losing a most valuable reservoir from which the staff for divisional organisations should be drawn. The R.A.O.C. officer in that division, whom I thought the most understaffed officer I met during the war, is at the moment the managing director of one of the most important multiple firms in the country. The principal R.A.S.C. officer is the owner of a fleet of trawlers in a port in the north of England. My immediate superior, the A.G.M.G.—I hope this will not be held against him—is the managing director of a very large brewery firm. I could repeat these examples over and over again.
All these men are still young and have an unrivalled experience of staff work in the Army. These men about whom I am speaking are not in the Territorial Army today. The reason for that is partly because of the experiences they had in the last war, and partly because they simply have not got the time to do foot-pushing up and down a Territorial drill hall. So they are not in the Territorial Army, although they would be very glad to be.
The Secretary of State will agree with me that there is a great reservoir untapped among the sort of people I have been talking about. I know that Members on both sides of the House can give examples in the same category to those I have mentioned. Why should there not be—I know that this point has been mentioned before in the House —a reserve for these officers so that when they are called up, if it is necessary to mobilise, they will know what their job is to be and that one of them for instance, is to be A.Q.M.G. to the "Barsetshires" and has to report within 48 hours to a certain place for orders? Why should these men not have, under the Official Secrets Act, access to whatever secret documents of administration or supply will immediately affect their province? Why should they not be willing—as I am sure the people about whom I am talking would be willing—to undergo a short period of training at Camberley or one of the other staff colleges of the country? I do not believe we are using the knowledge of the sort of people whose case I am putting forward tonight.
The only other point I have to make concerns the mobility of the formations, and particularly the divisions we are forming at present. Anyone who has been, like myself, a staff officer knows the horrifying amount of time it takes a division, with all its transport, to pass a given point on a road. Many people know what was the position in Korea during the retreat—and this applies to many operations of war. I saw an excellent description which said we were the prisoners of our own mobility. We had so much transport that it was immensely difficult to switch from one line to another. It is not the fault of the Government; it is essentially a fault of the system. As I see it, the fault is this: that we are always ready in the Army in this country to fight the last war but not the next war.
As those who were in France in 1940 know, we were then quite ready to carry on where 1918 left off. I dare say that those with longer memories than mine can say much the same thing about the First World War. When I went to the Staff College at the end of 1943, and when we came out as staff officers for the invasion of Normandy, the lessons which were being taught at the staff colleges were the lessons of the desert. The set-piece attack was Alamein; the problems of supply were those of the desert. We were taught to fight a campaign which was already passing into history.
Exactly the same thing happens again, and I know from people to whom I have talked who have been at the staff colleges since the invasion of Normandy that the set-piece attack was the attack made by my division, the 50th Division, in conjunction with Force G on the beaches of Normandy. Precisely the same thing was happening—we were teaching history and not the next campaign.
We should try to switch that emphasis; we should try to switch it from what is inevitable under the present system—from the last war and even the last campaign, to the next war. There should be an instruction possibly on the lines of the 10-year rule which existed between the wars. For the next 10 years the enemy will be Ruritania. We should first teach our graduates at the staff college—and I am thinking of them more particularly, although it applies to all ranks of the Army—the intelligence which our possible enemies have at their disposal. We should teach them knowledge of the weapons they may have to meet.
The second point follows automatically, I think, from the first. The possible enemy we have in our minds has a very high proportion of men in the front line actually firing, by comparison with the number of men it takes to support them. The proportion is five or six times better than the proportion in our Army. In part, that arises from the fact that they have standards lower than any which would be tolerable to what is called the Western way of life. We cannot get down to their proportion, and we should be deceiving ourselves if we thought we could, but I think we can get a good deal nearer the ideal than we are at the moment.
I do not want to talk about the possibility of pruning the "tail," but I think we should look very carefully to see whether some of the large static establishments—I am thinking of R.E.M.E., R.A.S.C. and workshops of that type— could not be made static in the countries over which we might conceivably have to fight in the future. I hope that there is a great possibility of making a considerable reduction in the inevitable "tail" which our overloaded formations and divisions have to carry at present.
I do not think that we can ever again think in terms of 1940. We can never again think that the enemy can be allowed to occupy the Channel ports and then assume we can go forward from the bastions of the free world to liberate Europe, because, as the French Minister of Defence, M. Moch, said recently, "There will be nothing to liberate except our ruins and our cemeteries." It is a given examples; and whether it is not leave our minds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) could not conceivably, in 1951, make the speech he made in 1940 about fighting on the beaches, in the hills and the villages.
If this country, and indeed civilisation, is to be preserved, then next time the enemy must not even reach the Channel ports. The way to stop them is to be strong as soon as we can, and for that reason I urge forward the measures put before the House tonight. But, in concluding, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about the two points I put: to make more adequate use of the more experienced staff officers of whom I have given examples; and whether it is not possible for a part of the basic administration of our Forces to be more closely integrated with the countries to which we are allied and through which it may be necessary to fight?

1.27 a.m.

Mr. H. A. Price: Having waited about eight-and-a-half hours to speak in this debate, I promise that I shall not, at this hour of the morning, detain the House for more than six minutes. I would like to raise an important point; and I hope the Minister will treat it as such. I can best put it to the House by telling hon. Members how it came to me. A man called on me recently, who had enlisted in August,


1946, for what is known as the four-years short-term engagement. He was, therefore, due for release last August, but when the Government had to alter their policy, following the invasion of Korea, he, and no doubt, others in similar positions, became liable for retention up to 18 months. This man served 171 additional days until discharged on medical grounds. But it is not the reason which counts: it is the principle.
My point is that this man enlisted under terms which were that he should receive £100 on the completion of his four years' term. This man—and it must apply to all others who served more than the four years—did not get more than the £100 bounty. He came to me with his complaint, and I put it to the Minister last November. It was not until this week that he made up his mind, and the answer was "No." That is not only extremely unjust, but extremely unwise.
Let me deal with the injustice first. If such a man fails to complete his four years' service for no reason of his own, he would be paid a proportion of his bounty, the proportion bearing the same proportion to £100 as his length of service does to four years. If, at the end of three years, he were discharged for, let us say, medical reasons, he would receive £75. In other words, if he fails to complete four years he does not get the full bounty; but if he serves for more than his four years he does not get a penny extra. His income is, in fact, cut by 10 shillings a week after his period of enlistment. Could there be a clearer case of a Government Department saying, "Heads I win, tails you lose?" For that reason alone, for its obvious injustice, I urge the Minister to reconsider that decision.
I wish now to deal with the wisdom of that decision. Surely it must be obvious that such a decision will have a harmful effect upon the spirit in which this man serves. The British soldier, more than anyone else, is a lover of fair play. He delights in giving fair play, and he insists upon receiving it. How can it be fair play to such a man to retain him in the Forces beyond the period of his enlistment upon terms which are equivalent to a reduction of 10s. a week in his pay? That must have an effect upon the spirit in which that man serves,

and that effect must be passed on to others who are serving with him, but who are not themselves affected. It may be that other considerations than money are involved. Men do not serve their country for money alone. That is true, and I accept it. But money is a consideration, and especially is it so when an injustice appears to have been done.
I think that the injustice in this case is so clear that it cannot be denied, and I seriously urge the Minister to accept this point, to review this matter and alter the decision which has been made, which I consider to be a very bad one.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. Strachey: This debate has been a long one, and it has been on a high level. It has been a serious debate, except for one interlude, perhaps; it has been one in which there has been a very large number of suggestions put forward, nearly all of them constructive and nearly all of them worthy of consideration. I cannot, of course, mention all of them, but I hope to deal with most of the main suggestions which have been made. Most of these were made by hon. Members opposite. I shall not have time to refer specifically to their speeches, but shall refer to the suggestions they have made.
First of all, there was the question of the recruitment of officers, which was dealt with forcibly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick (Mr. Eden), by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) and by many other hon. Members. It is true that we are concerned about the supply of officers, the entry to Sandhurst, and the number of Regular officers who are entering the service, and who are available to the Service.
The two things go together. I think that the steps which I have just announced for the continuation of the careers of officers to a later age will help. It will help in two ways. It will encourage boys to enter the service, and it will induce parents to encourage their boys to do so. It will, of course, as the older officers stay on, relieve the position and will free more younger officers for more active duties today. I am not suggesting that this step is enough in itself. I agree that it is not simply a question of pay, but the question of retired pay for the Service is art important one. The suggestion of a lump sum on leaving the Service has been


made. That, also, is well worth consideration, and we are not using the word "consideration" in its formal sense. We have for some little time been going into this question. I cannot pledge myself to anything specific tonight, but I hope we shall be able to make an announcement on the subject in the fairly near future.
When I have said that, however, I do not agree with certain implications that were made as to the current rate of pay to officers. On the one hand, I do not agree entirely with the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) that the pay of officers is too large and the differential necessarily too large. Nor, on the other hand, can I agree that the rate of pay to officers today, including the junior officers, is ungenerous. I thought he was on stronger ground, not when he compared the rate of pay of soldiers and other ranks—there is bound to be a differential there—but when he compared the officers to teachers and members of other professions outside.
Today the officer's rate of pay does not compare too badly in many respects. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton who compared it with our rates of pay as Members of this House. After all, if you look down the table printed on page 177 of the Estimates, you will see that a captain, after four years' service in the ranks, just passes the rate of pay of a Member of Parliament.—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has no secretary to pay."] That is true. On the other hand, he does not perhaps get the same Income Tax allowances, so that it cancels out. I should have thought an officer does not come badly out of the comparison.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to refer to the point of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton that the junior officer is controlling half a million pounds worth of equipment, which is a different matter from schoolmasters or Members of Parliament.

Mr. Strachey: There is something in that, but the responsibility of Members of this House is fairly considerable, and the teacher's responsibilities are very great, too. If we look down this table we really shall not think that the rates of pay, as they are now, are too bad for the officer, right through the scale.
We are concerned about the entry to Sandhurst and we have a committee sitting under General Stopford, at the moment, looking into this. It will be within his terms of reference to look into the question of a military Dartmouth. There is something to be said for it and something against, but it will be considered. I do not like the suggestion that Sandhurst today is a preserve of the public schools. As anybody who has visited Sandhurst lately will know, that is not the case. There is a very large number of boys going to Sandhurst who are not from public schools, and it cannot be thought of as a public school preserve at all today.
Another point that was raised by a large number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, was the question of the War Office staffs, and staffs generally in the Army. I want to repeat that although we may think them too big—and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton made great play with this, most amusingly—we have just cut them down by 20 per cent., and we have just issued an instruction that they shall be cut down by a further 5 per cent. before next June. So we are tackling this. We do in this instruction admit that they have been too large, and we do feel that they should be pruned.
A much wider issue than the actual level of staffs, as a large number of hon. Members on both sides have mentioned, is the proportion of "teeth" to "tail" in the Army. It is a deeply interesting and difficult question. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery) gave some interesting comparative figures of the different armies of the world. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) gave a very interesting account of the Russian Army in this respect, but the facts that he gave seemed to me a convincing explanation of why we could never hope to get anything very close to the Russian proportion of "teeth" to "tail." If we were willing to treat ourselves in the way he described, and to have an army of that sort, with that degree of roughness, that total disregard, as he described it, of the individual and even of human life, we could get something like that proportion; but I am sure he will recognise that in the sort of army we maintain that would be quite impossible.
Generally, as an army becomes the army of a more advanced community, and a more advanced and mechanised army, there is constant pressure for the "tail" to grow at the expense of the "teeth," and the only thing you can do is constantly to combat it. We are not unaware of that. The hon. and learned Member asked us to appoint a committee. We have just appointed a committee. He asked for it to have a civilian chairman. We have not done that. We have appointed General Templer, and we have chosen him chiefly because in his own command he has been most successful in doing this. We think he is likely to be more vigorous—I almost said more ruthless—than anyone else we could think of. This constant desire for the "tail" to grow as complexity and mechanisation grows is being constantly combatted.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: It is not just a question of cutting staff; it is the system which gives rise to inflated staffs. An entirely new concept of the way the thing is organised is fundamental.

Mr. Strachey: That may be so, and these questions are not outside the terms of reference of the people who are looking into this.
Now on the question of the Home Guard, which was raised by a number of hon. Members. This is a question of degree. It is fully agreed that we must begin some preparations for the possible formation in case of war of a Home Guard. That has been done, and commands are doing the planning work all over the country for that purpose, and have been given staffs to do it. There, again, you get staffs growing; the new task itself creates new offices to do it. We do not think—and this is our considered view—that in the order of priority—and there must be an order of priority for the manpower, staff work, and equipment—we should go further at the moment. That is my view, and the solid view of my advisers.
The noble Lord the Member for Pent-lands (Lord John Hope) criticised me—I am afraid I was out of the House at the time, although he had given me notice— for mentioning the views of my advisers on the length of training for Malaya. I have discussed this with the C.I.G.S., as I told the House, and it is a matter which

deeply concerns the House and me. I wanted his personal views on this matter because it is a highly technical one, and I gave the House those personal views. But I am bound to say that, thinking it over, I rather agree with the noble Lord that, as a general practice, it is bad to quote the individual views of advisers and I take his point on that.
Another point, raised chiefly by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), was that of tanks. He asked me a number of questions and some of which I most emphatically cannot answer. The first point is in the latter category. He asked me most specifically—and I was somewhat astonished to hear the question—at what range will the gun of a Centurion penetrate the frontal armour of the J.S.3? If I tried to answer that question, it would be over the dead body of the Director of Military Intelligence. Surely he would be fully justified in that.

Mr. Sandys: When I asked that question, I made it very clear that I was doing it on the assumption that it was correct that one of our Centurion tanks had fallen into the hands of the enemy in Korea. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say whether that is a fact.

Mr. Strachey: I am coming to that. It is perfectly true that it was reported in the Press that a Centurion had fallen into the hands of the enemy, but the tank was most carefully destroyed before it did so and I do not think for one moment that enemy Powers, or Powers which we do not wish to have this information, could have obtained it from that Centurion, or from what was left of it. Therefore, I could not possibly answer that question.

Mr. Sandys: There is one part of this question which the right hon. Gentleman could perfectly well answer. I do not know whether we have captured one or not, but if we have a Stalin tank, we should know the strength of its gun. Presumably our tank is not so much destroyed that they do not know the thickness of armour. Is it possible to say at what range the gun of the Stalin tank can penetrate the armour of the Centurion? If the right hon. Gentleman has not the figures, perhaps he could consider that and we could have the information later on.

Mr. Strachey: That is now a different question, based on different premises, but the answer is the same. I could not possibly give an answer to a specific question on so technical a matter as that. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were producing more Tortoises. No, we are not producing more of that model of tank.

Mr. Sandys: I did not ask that; I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was the policy of the War Office to produce a heavy assault tank for the Army and I referred to that as an experimental model used to gain experience in this matter.

Mr. Strachey: I am coming to the question of future tanks in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman quoted my statement that tank output had been doubled and asked if we were satisfied with that. No; that is why, as already announced, we have decided to lay down two wholly new tank-producing plants, which can produce much more than double the present output.
Then the right hon. Gentleman asked me a series of questions about the development of a new tank which I mentioned and asked me to tell him, the House and the world whether a prototype of this new tank was already forward. I cannot possibly give the date on which that prototype has appeared or will appear, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no gap in our tank development. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, this new tank, the Centurion, and all tanks, have to develop out of older models, and that development is going on continuously and as fast as our engineers, scientists and technicians can take it.
Finally he asked whether we had enough operational tanks to equip the three armoured divisions. Yes, we have. I was asked by several right hon. and hon. Gentlemen about "B" vehicles, and the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton said that, so far as he knew, we were not producing any "B" or soft vehicles. That would be a serious situation were it the case; but I can assure the House that it is not. We are spending a lot of money on reconditioning and rebuilding comparatively old soft-skin vehicles, but I would not agree that that produces a rickety or inefficient product.

The full Army rebuild in an Army workshop produces a vehicle which, some people claim, is as good as new. On the other hand, I agree that that in itself is not enough and that actual production of new vehicles must start now. That is being done and we have placed orders for £5 million worth of new types of "B" vehicles of all kinds. I was asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) about infantry carriers. We have some and are producing new types.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I make certain whether we are on the same point? There is a differentiation between the tactical carrier, the half-track White scout car and the assault infantry vehicle for carrying troops in armour.

Mr. Strachey: I was referring to the type of vehicle with the tank chassis. These vehicles still exist. I should not like to express an opinion on the views of the War Office on their tactical use in the attack, but certainly such vehicles exist.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: All the Shermans have gone to the Groundnuts Scheme.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, some Sherman tanks were converted, but those were not the ones converted for infantry troop carriers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked me about the sale of material and other things, and he asked me to give what was almost a pledge that we would not sell further material. I cannot do that. It is vitally important to note that, closely allied as we are to a series of nations in the North Atlantic Pact, it may be absolutely right to sell military equipment and material to our Allies, who could make great use of it. Each case must be judged on its merits. I think it is wrong to prejudge the use of a particular piece of equipment and say that in any circumstances it is better kept in this country than sold to an Ally or a member of the Commonwealth.
I cannot comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. East (Mr. Crossman), about political warfare, but the fact that I do not comment on it does not mean I was not interested by it.
I do not know what the House feels is the general impression which has been made by this debate, but I shall carry away the impression that the House feels,


without being over-confident or over-optimistic, that we are seeing the beginnings- of the strengthening of our land forces. We certainly ought to from the amount of money we are spending and the amount of manpower which is being devoted to them. All I would claim— and it is an essential thing that we should claim it—is that there is a very real growth of confidence in the Army, and I have not the slightest doubt that the confidence will grow progressively over the year which these Estimates cover.

Mr. M. Lindsay: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the point I raised, because I gave him notice in writing about it a day or two ago? It is the question of the delay in the gallantry awards for the junior ranks in Korea.

Mr. Strachey: I am very sorry that I missed that point. I quite agree that the delay is something to be looked into and, as the hon. Member knows, the Commander-in-Chief, Far Eastern Command, is in this country at the moment, and I will discuss the matter with him. I frankly do not know what is the cause of the delay.

Lord John Hope: Is any consideration being given to the question of refresher courses for reserve staff officers?

Mr. Strachey: I think it has been considered, but there have been difficulties about it. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him our considered view on it.

2.0 a.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not want to detain the House long at this late hour, but such a debate as this is the one occasion in the year when we can air our views about the use the Army should be put to in the coming year. Therefore, I hope the House will forgive me for speaking now.
I was rather disappointed about what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Home Guard. Running through the whole of the debate has been the theme that the old role of the Army was to protect this country. There are many outside this House as well as inside it who are genuinely worried about our state of preparedness today. A very great responsibility is placed upon the Territorial Army in that capacity, and anti-Aircraft Command gives some cause for concern.
Either the Army has to do this job of protecting the country or the Home Guard has to be used for it. Civil Defence cannot do it. They are not armed. Personally, I believe that Civil Defence in the rural areas should certainly be armed, and that the Civil Defence and the Home Guard in the rural areas should work very closely together. I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that His Majesty's Government have ruled out the possibility of a major threat to these islands this year. That is the only conclusion I can draw from his speech, unless, of course, he is relying on the Class Z reservists to take the place of the Home Guard in the event of anything happening this year. I hope he is right in assuming that danger will not come to our country this year.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) charged those of us who sit on this side of the House with being rather apt to call for an increase in the colonial manpower in our Forces so that we would not have to protect this country ourselves. He added that if we continued to take that line they would slide away. That is an unfair charge to bring against us. The best answer to him is that they have not been sliding away, and, further, that no colonial manpower was called upon except volunteer manpower.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East, dragged foreign affairs into this discussion on defence. He referred to our commitments in the Middle East, and asked whether we could really meet them today with the Army we have there at the moment. I know that something over a year ago the dispersal of our troops in the Middle East was very great indeed, and I should like to think that they could be quickly collected and taken to any place where danger threatened. I very much doubt whether it could be done.
That leads me to two points which I wish to make. I believe there are four "a's" which one ought to bear in mind in a modern Army—airborne, armour, anti-tank and anti-aircraft. We have tended to concentrate far too much on armour and far too little on airborne. For overseas policing duties the Army has to be ready at a moment's notice to go to any area where there is trouble, and a greater part of our Army ought to be airborne. I hope that proper steps are being taken to bring that about. The


right hon. Gentleman has given us no indication that any steps are being taken along those lines. For Great Britain and the Commonwealth the Middle East is a great centre, which we cannot possibly afford to lose. We must have free movement through that area; we must be able to have bases there somewhere; we must have troops there ready to protect those bases. At the moment I am dissatisfied with the position.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind some of the points I have raised and will do something as soon as possible to reassure the country about its protection rather more than he has done so far. He has told us that certain steps are being taken about the Home Guard—with regard to the preparation of plans and the setting up of staffs. That was news to us. I do not think many people in the country realise that it has happened. I believe if the right hon. Gentleman could state what has been done and could start a nucleus for training men—and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) pointed out, there is no need to call on the Regular Army for that—then he would greatly reassure the country that we were prepared for anything which might happen, although, of course, we hope that the need will not arise.

2.6 a.m.

Mr. Driberg: I want to revert very briefly to a subject which has been raised several times this evening and was raised also at Question time recently —the subject of a local overseas allowance for troops in Korea. I was extremely glad to hear the hint that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave that he was considering this matter and that he might be able to give a favourable decision on it shortly. I hope very much that next Tuesday he will be able to tell us that he intends to grant the soldiers in Korea a local overseas allowance. There are several Questions on the subject on the Order Paper for Tuesday.
One hon. Member opposite said, quite rightly, that money considerations are important, particularly when there is a sense of injustice. When the first British troops arrived in Korea from Hong Kong the first thing they learned about what the war in Korea would mean to them

personally was that it would mean a cut in their pay. We know that, in fact, it was not a cut in their pay, but a cutting off of what is called the local overseas allowance which they had been drawing while in Hong Kong and which was related to the cost of living in Hong Kong. But, none the less, it seemed an injustice to them; it embittered them; it was not explained to them properly. They did not understand the tidy, logical Treasury argument for it, and to them it simply looked like a cut in their pay the moment they were going into action in Korea after the long months of training and exercising in Hong Kong.
I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to make a favourable announcement on this subject on Tuesday. In a letter dated 8th December he told me the matter would be kept under review and that he would not hesitate to introduce an L.O.A. in Korea if the prices of items on which the troops spent their money justified it. We all know about the prices of N.A.A.F.I. items, which are related to Hong Kong prices. I hope my right hon. Friend will take that as justifying an L.O.A. in Korea and will make it retrospective to the date at which such items became available.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1951–52

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Resolved:
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 527,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £110,170,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADET FORCES

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £13,640,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense


of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 100 officers for the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, 27,000, all ranks, for the Regular Reserve and 58,000, all ranks, for the Supplementary Reserve) Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 297,100, all ranks) and Cadet Forces, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £28,140,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and, lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £18,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

Resolutions to be reported on Friday; Committee to sit again on Friday.

REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS ORDERS

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I beg to move,
That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 9) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
This Order in Council, and the one that follows on the Order Paper are needed because of the extension of the boundaries of the county boroughs of Bath and Plymouth. The Orders will, if approved, come into force in April, but will have no effect in any Parliamentary election until after the next General Election. Order No. 9 gives effect to the recommendations in the Report of the Boundaries Commission, which was laid before the House on 13th February last, with one exception. There is a change in the description of the North Somerset constituency because the Commissioners overlooked the fact that a parish had been

divided into two parishes; and this Order gives effect to the intentions, although not the exact terms, of the Report.
Order No. 10 has no such complication, and gives effect to the recommendations of the Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 10) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. de Freitas.]

SEWING THREADS (PRICES)

2.13 a.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 1st February, 1951, entitled the Sewing Cottons and Threads (Maximum Prices) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 166), a copy of which was laid before his House on 2nd February, be annulled.
I was surprised, and indeed, very delighted, to see that so many great minds have thought alike on the question of the examination of these Statutory Instruments; and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House have the same view in mind as I. It is important, in view of the terrific increase in the cost of living which we are all facing today. Of course, nobody pretends that the retail price of sewing cottons has a very profound bearing on the cost of living; but, at the same time, there are few things in such universal use in our homes as sewing threads and cottons and the cumulative effect of the sharp rise in prices, even of these small items, is not a negligible part of the housewife's budget.

Mr. Bing: I thought the hon. Member was going to deal with the policy of trade associations in regard to this matter, because this Order gives effect to the recommendations of trade associations.

Mr. Nicholls: I have always been told that a very good quality for an hon. Member of this House is that of patience, and I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member opposite would have given me a little time to develop my point. We might just be thinking along the same lines, and worse characters than he have been known to reform. It is a


good thing, also, always to live in hope and I had hoped that this Prayer having been put down at this time, would disclose for the general public the reasons for the need of Statutory Instrument 166 at all.
Last week, from 24th February to 3rd March, there was held throughout the country a National Sewing Week promoted by the manufacturers of these products. During that week, retailers all over the country participated in window displays and the promotion of events of various sorts. The slogan of many of these displays was "Sew and Save." It is still just about possible to sew, despite the meat ration, but it is certainly becoming increasingly more difficult to save.
Similarly, during the war there was very much talk about "Make do and mend," so as to conserve the nation's depleted stocks of clothing. The W.V.S., did good work in this direction. It is obvious that, as the prices of clothing rise, the public will not need Government publicity to encourage them to save some of these costs by making their own clothing. They will have to make do and mend to provide themselves and their children with changes of clothing, the need for which the various seasons will undoubtedly bring with them.
If the prices of raw materials continue to rise, as was suggested by the President of the Board of Trade last Friday, then it will be a case of allowing the householders to have a chance to make at home clothing which, previously, they bought ready-made in the shops. It is, therefore, obviously desirable that the prices of mending materials, including sewing cottons and threads, should be kept down to the lowest possible level. I do not deny, and I do not think anyone would, that some increase would have been necessary, and has been necessary, to keep pace with the rising cost of raw materials. For instance, the increasing cost of raw cotton, the increasing cost of the timber to make the reels, and all the various items which are required in connection with this particular product before it reaches the shelves of the shops.
Nevertheless, I feel that the House should note the marked increases which have been brought about in the maximum retail prices of sewing cottons by this Order. But I do not feel that we should have in mind only this last increase. One

advantage of submitting a Prayer, even at this late hour, is that one can burn some midnight oil with a view to keeping well-informed other hon. Members who may have been taking advantage of the opportunity to sleep on previous nights.
I have taken the trouble to go back to 1945 to see how these prices have altered. In 1945, under Statutory Instrument No. 446, we have this example: Coates 64 soft sewing cotton, 100 yards reel, maximum price fixed by this Order, 3d. In another Order, in 1947, No. 1837, it went up by one halfpenny to 3½d. In 1948, by Order No. 1308, it went up to 4½d., first by an increase of a halfpenny and then by another halfpenny. In this final Order of 1951, No. 166, the Order which I am discussing now, it is going up a further twopence to 6½d. So, it is not just a case of the maximum price having gone up from 4½d. to 6½d. since 1945; it has gone from 3d. to 6½d., or more than doubled.
Similarly, if we look at the other popular thread, the 200 yards reel, that, in 1945, cost 4½d., in 1947 it went up to 5d., in 1948 to 6d., and now under this Instrument, it goes up to 9d. The increase is from 4½d. to 9d. The 400 yards reel, that is the reel used on sewing machines—and all of us who have young families know that this is much in use nowadays—went up from 7½d. in 1945 to 8½d. in 1947, to 10½d. in 1948, and to 1s. 0d. in 1951.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can we be told the profits that have been made?

Mr. Nicholls: I am making my own point; if hon. Members want to make another point about profits they must do so.
The increase is not just of Id. or l½d. compared with 1948. In all of these popular sewing cottons the increase is more than double. We ought to remember that the people who are paying for this are, for the most part, young mothers whose young families are continually growing out of their clothing. This is no question of over-paid brigadiers or chairmen of nationalised boards. It is a question of ordinary families, where wives have to use this cotton. When we approve this Statutory Instrument we are hitting hard at the very people whom, when we are electioneering, we desire to represent


I could give a much longer list, but know that hon. Members will accept my word, since I have gone to great trouble to investigate the details, that the instances I have given are typical of other instances. I would like to say a word on what has caused this increase, because if we could show that the causes were unnecessary, and that if we had the power we would dispense with this Instrument, then some good would be done.
There has been a rise in the cost of labour. Wages have gone up because the cost of living has risen, and the cost of living has risen because such things as cotton have gone up. If we allow the various increases to go on and on, we are merely producing further need for wages to rise still further, and so the merry game will continue.

Mr. John Lewis: Surely the hon. Member sees that the fact that raw materials go up in the world market, has a direct effect upon the price of the finished product?

Mr. Nicholls: That is a very sound observation and the hon. Member is anticipating, because that is the next point with which I wish to deal. There are various reasons for this increase and I am dealing with wages first. The hon. Member is quite right—the rising cost of labour is only one of the reasons. Another cause is the increased cost of raw materials that go to make this cotton. It is not without significance that since the Cotton Commission, with its rigid buying technique, replaced the merchant, who could buy 50 or 100 bales at a time, we have seen this increase in the cost of raw material. Further, I suggest that the cost of our raw materials has risen higher than it need have done, because of this inept technique——

Mr. Nally: Assuming the hon. Member to be right, that in this country the increased prices are, in part at any rate, the result of the Government's policy of bulk buying, would he care to give us the result of his researches into the increases on the commodities he has named in the United States, where none of these considerations apply?

Mr. Nicholls: Charity begins at home, and I must confess that I confined my

labours to this country. The hon. Member ought to have great sympathy with this case, because all my personal experience is derived from having lived for many years between Bilston and Dudley.
In general, the price of raw cotton has increased, on an average, by something like 80 per cent. since 1948. Certain kinds have increased even more. The packing of them is also a fairly large item, and the price of packing materials has also gone up considerably. The price of raw cotton is determined by the Raw Cotton Commission, and they have completely lost control of any say in world prices; they are following, like Mary's little lamb, behind world prices.
The other main reason for the increase is, as we all know, but do not all admit, the result of devaluation. When Sir Stafford Cripps said that it would only raise the cost-of-living index by 1 per cent. he was either incapable of making a responsible estimate, which questions his ability for the high office he held, or he deliberately tried to mislead the nation. Hon. Members can have their pick, but they must pick one or the other.

Mr. Paton: If the hon. Member pretends to quote Sir Stafford Cripps, he might do it correctly. When Sir Stafford Cripps mentioned the figure the hon. Member has just given he stated that that was the figure for the few months immediately after devaluation.

Mr. Nicholls: We all know that Sir Stafford Cripps was a lawyer, and how lawyers delight in tying things up. There is no doubt about it: the message Sir Stafford Cripps intended to give to the ordinary layman was that the cost of living was going up by only 1 index point.
That is my case: that the increase has been brought about by the increase in wages, the rise in the cost of raw materials and by the effects of devaluation. We all know that devaluation is a proof of the failure of the Government's previous financial policy, which increased the cost of living all round. The Government now try to put the blame on to the Korean war, re-armament and stockpiling. We ought to


keep clearly in mind that the increases that have taken place this year were to pay the cost of devaluation last year and that next year we will have to pay the cost of the re-armament and stockpiling that is taking place now. I think we could agree, so far, that this Statutory Instrument will certainly play a part in putting up living costs to younger families.
Many responsible reviews have told us that the consequences are heavier than that. I have here the "Cotton Trade Union Journal" for 31st December, 1950, No. 629. After all, it looks as though we have our money on a horse that has been scratched. This is what this very responsible journal says:
This year as a whole, however, may be divided in two parts. During the first six months, although all firms were very busy, there were signs of a decline in the demand for Lancashire products and in certain quarters there was a feeling that the healthy conditions which had existed for many years were about to become less favourable to a considerable extent. This state of affairs was due to the increased competition from countries abroad, and reports were received of Lancashire prices being above those of some foreign producers. Also, during the first half of the year, there was a tendency for exports to decline.
This is a very serious report to come from this impartial review, and I suggest it is a piece of advice which ought not to be laughed out of court. The conclusion I draw from that is that we have been going along the wrong track for the last five years.

Mr. Albu: The quotation which the hon. Member gave referred to the healthy condition during the last few years.

Mr. Nicholls: It is a good thing to look forward sometimes, and not to wallow too much in the idea that everything is all right. This Statutory Instrument is merely the last piece of evidence of the failure of the Government during the whole of the last five years. The reason for the one-time popularity of the Government was as a consequence of the good schemes they inherited from the Caretaker Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).
We know the old cliché "The last straw that broke the camel's back," but now it may be the last piece of cotton that will break it. This Instrument is another sympton of this tragic trend, and I believe

that it would have been wrong for this Instrument to have slinked—[HON. MEMBERS: "Slunk"]—or slunk on to the Statute Book in the darkness of the night. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Ede) has often done, I may have backed a "wrong one" there. I think it was right that this should have been brought to the notice of the House so that hon. Gentlemen may know what they are approving by allowing the Order to come into operation.

Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre (New Forest): I beg to second the Motion.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Hon. Gentlemen must remain seated while I am standing. If I can have silence, I shall put the question. We must carry out the correct procedure.

2.36 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): In answering the speech by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls), may I tell him what the Order is about? When I have finished perhaps he will decide whether he is going to divide the House. The Order increases the maximum prices of domestic sewing, mending, fancy and handicraft cottons and threads. These higher prices were required by the manufacturers because of the increase in the cost of raw cotton. We allow them after a very careful review in consultation with the Central Price Regulation Committee. The hon. Gentleman was quite right with his original figures, but may I remind him that the price for raw cotton rose eight times between 1938 and 1950?
The prices allowed for in this Order range from a halfpenny for some reels of sewing cottons, balls of darning cotton and skeins of embroidery cotton; 3d. for large balls of embroidery cotton; 4d. for small balls of knitted cotton; and 5½d. for large reels of machine thread. May I inform him that this is the first increase in prices that has been allowed to the sewing trade manufacturers since 1948? So far as there is any disagreement between us and the manufacturers, it is because they feel that the price increases allowed have not been enough. If hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that the Government are, on this particular issue, not doing all they can to prevent


prices rising unduly and without sufficient cause, they should ask manufacturers whether they feel that the new prices are unduly generous or not. I would ask the hon. Member for Peterborough to withdraw this Prayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right then, but I am asking the hon Member to withdraw it because it is rather a foolish Prayer. The hon. Member did a lot of talking about the price of cotton, but he knows full well, or at least he should know, that if this Prayer were carried, it would have very serious consequences for the sewing trade manufacturers themselves.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Could the hon. Gentleman answer what is the value of the raw cotton content in a 100 yard reel of finished cotton?

Mr. Rhodes: I have no idea.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If only all the members of the Government had had the same candour as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade we would have had a much easier five years in British history. He acknowledged that he had not the remotest idea of the answer to a perfectly reasonable question which was put to him. My only point in getting up at this moment is to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. He has described this Prayer as a foolish Prayer. I am interested to see that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) have both subscribed to this foolish Prayer. To heal the breach in his own ranks, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will persuade one or other of his colleagues to give the House the reasons which led them to sign this Prayer.

2.46 a.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: I should first like to protest against the procedure of the House which allows such a ridiculous proceeding to take place at such an unearthly hour. I interrupted the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) when he was moving this Prayer to ask a question about dividends. He was stressing the various reasons for the increase in price, mentioning how wages had risen, how the price of cotton had risen, and so on I asked him what

were the dividends paid by Messrs. Coats this year. I do not know whether he knew the answer, but he did not reply to me and I am going to give him the answer. I find from the reference books that the capital of this company is some £20 million to which it has been swollen artificially from £3¾ million.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order. Would I be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, following the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), to speak of the dividends payable by all the companies concerned?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the dividends to be paid are very far removed from the question of the price of these commodities.

Mr. Paton: Surely it is relevant, when discussing the price of a specific commodity, that we should also consider the bearing upon that price of the amount of profit which is earned?

Mr. H. Hynd: I submit that one of the elements in the case is the amount paid in profits?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it in order now to discuss the whole question of bulk buying of cotton by the Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Anything which affects the price would be in order.

Squadron Leader Burden: If it is proper for the dividends to be brought into this matter, would it be proper to refer to the profits which the Government themselves are making out of the raw materials which they are buying and selling to the manufacturers of this country?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I imagine that whatever affects the price under this Order can be discussed.

Mr. Hynd: The interruptions from the other side of the House show that they have a very bad conscience on this point, and I feel all the more justified in having raised it.

Miss Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman did not raise it.

Mr. Hynd: I am sorry if I woke the hon. Lady. I was saying that the capital of this company was some 20 million pounds. No sum of £20 million was ever paid in, but only some £3¾ million


was originally paid. The increase, largely made up of what is called watered stock, has gone on until the sum of £20 million has been reached. In 1945, which was the year quoted by the hon. Member, the dividend paid on this watered stock was 10 per cent. In 1946 and 1947 and 1948 that dividend had increased to 12½ per cent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is going too far to discuss balance sheets and the details of the various companies mentioned.

Mr. Hynd: That increase in dividend is, in my submission, one of the elements——

Mr. Remnant: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to base his suggestions on incorrect figures? The important figure is the capital employed in the business, not the issued capital.

Mr. Hynd: I am sure that if the hon. Member wants to reply to me he will have an opportunity to do so. If he can prove that my figures are incorrect I shall be interested to hear him. It is quite unfair to put before the House certain elements as having increased the price of cotton without putting forward what I consider to be one of the most important elements—the increased dividends paid to the producers of this material.

2.51 a.m.

Mr. Grimond: The discussion appears to have been conducted on the assumption that the Government are laying down minimum prices for cotton. There is nothing to prevent a manufacturer from charging less than those prices if he wishes.
While I agree that there are many parts of the economy of this country in which control is necessary and in which the Government have to intervene, the type of debate which takes place on such a Prayer as this seems to indicate that there are also considerable parts of the economy where there is a lot to be said for the old fashioned remedy of a little free competition. If we had a little more free competition, a rather more free market in certain parts of the economy, we should be saved the necessity of being here at this time of the morning and a great deal of the discussion which has

just taken place would have been unnecessary.

2.52 a.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I intervene for only one moment to deal with certain obvious misconceptions which appear to have arisen. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made such a lot of noise that they have not heard what has been said. They might have done the Parliamentary Secretary—a Member of their Government—the compliment of listening to him. His concluding remarks were to the effect that if this Order were rejected the producers and manufacturers would be in great difficulty. The Parliamentary Secretary and his superior, the President of the Board of Trade, have decided that these prices are necessary so that firms might survive. They do not regard these prices as profiteering, therefore. Hon. Members opposite have neither read the Order nor listened to what the Parliamentary Secretary said. They think if they make strange noises they are assisting Parliamentary government. It is clear that there is a conflict between the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd)——

Mr. David Griffiths: We are not praying against the Order.

Sir H. Williams: I am trying to educate hon. Member's minds. They should have listened to the Minister, who, presumably, spoke on their behalf.

2.53 a.m.

Mr. Nally: When it comes to a question of listening to the Parliamentary Secretary, or paying attention to what he says, we need no guidance from that dehydrated Napoleon, the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams).

Mr. J. Lewis: Why does my hon. Friend assume that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is dehydrated?

Mr. Nally: When we are here at this time of the morning we might as well have a serious discussion on the detailed points before us. These Prayers are carefully timed by the Opposition so as to cause the maximum inconvenience to those of us who are without cars. There is an obligation upon the hon. Member moving the Prayer to prove, by examples


from abroad, that where the principle of bulk buying and State interference does not apply either to the buying of raw materials or to manufacture then, as a consequence of free enterprise, the price to the housewife of the articles he has named is cheaper than in this country. The truth is that if we take any country in Europe—Holland, Belgium, Denmark, or, for that matter, the United States or Canada—where the principles, broadly, of private enterprise operate——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going outside what is in the Order.

Mr. Nally: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we are to have it argued that because of certain policies of the Government some prices are higher than they should be, surely it is right for me to ask the advocates of private enterprise on the benches opposite about prices where private enterprise operates.
I think that there is an obligation upon the hon. Member who has conducted these deep researches to take them a bit further. It is perfectly true that one of the major factors in price increase in this particular field is wages. I not only admit that fact; I proclaim it. Those of us born in Lancashire, in the textile areas, as in my own case, remember what happened. When my mother's mother worked in the mill, there was nothing funny about that at all. There was nothing funny in her going to work in the cotton mills at 11 years of age, as did both my grandmothers. That sort of thing may be funny to hon. Members opposite, but it is not funny to me. There has been a quite remarkable increase; next to the miners, the increase in textile workers' wages has been remarkable.
I hope that the Government, in introducing this Order have never sought to disguise the fact that the increase in wages is not based on the cost of living, but on a long overdue feeling that there was need for elementary justice. It was justice which should have been given years ago; but the increase has had its effect on the commodity. I am by no means certain about all things, but this is a fact: all the manufacturers' associations who are associated with this trade have complained, one after another, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board

of Trade that the increased prices are not sufficient to satisfy them.
If, in fact, this Prayer is carried tonight, does that mean that the Board of Trade, following the adverse decision of the House, will go to the manufacturers and say, "We are not prepared to approve this increase in price?" Further, if it does, will the Opposition then support the President and the Parliamentary Secretary when they have their row with the manufacturers?

2.59 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I say that the strongest case for this Motion was made by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd). The hon. Gentleman said that the manipulation of the price control system by the Board of Trade had had the result, among other things, of causing one firm— which he mentioned by name—to make such profits that it had paid 12½ per cent. on what he described as "watered capital". I hope he understands it, for that is what he said.
If that be true—and I take it that the hon. Member would not have made that statement, and taken responsibility for the statement, if he were not quite certain of it—two consequences seem to follow: first, it seems a pity that a Government so skilled in making profits for private enterprise is unable to do so when it conducts a private enterprise itself. By way of illustration alone, I would remind hon. Members that the groundnut scheme did not pay quite as well. Second, if the hon. Member's statement is true the prices' fixed for cotton have been fixed too high. Surely that follows. The purpose of this Order is to fix the prices even higher. If hon. Members believe what the hon. Member for Accrington said, to the effect that the prices are already too high, they are morally bound to support us in annulling an Order which will make the prices even higher.

Question put, and negatived.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the voices have been collected, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I take it that I may ask a question on a point of order without covering my head. The point is that if there are divisions, I take it that if hon. Members opposite call out "Aye" they should follow their voice if a vote is taken. A minute or


two ago the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) called out "Aye." Had there been a vote, and had the hon. Gentleman voted "No," his vote ought to have been registered as "Aye." I ask in order that the matter may be cleared up.

Mir. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Let me answer one point of order at a time. A Member's vote must follow his voice.

Mr. Nally: Further to that point of order. I may not have been a Member of this House very long, but at least I know the rule in this respect. I was careful when voices were called, not to raise my voice, as all Members sitting around me well know. I did not raise my voice at all.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point does not arise, as there was no division.

Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order. Is it for the good order of the conduct of this House, at this time in the morning, that hon. Gentlemen opposite should move six or seven Prayers and then not enforce them by a division?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. As many Prayers may be tabled as Members wish.

FURNITURE (MAXIMUM PRICES)

3.7 a.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 7th February 1951, entitled the Furniture (Maximum Prices) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 205), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be annulled.
This Order raises two issues. One is the content of the Order. The other is a question similar to the one I raised last night on another matter—whether the Order has been properly made. [Interruption.]I understand that it is one of the rules of this House that hon. Members who are not in the Chamber are committing an offence if they interrupt proceedings—[Interruption.]—I beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to

the fact that a considerable number of hon. Members beyond the Bar are seeking to make it impossible for an orderly debate to take place. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Let me hear anyhow.

Sir H. Williams: I have had considerable experience of addressing meetings attended by Members belonging to the party opposite and I have always observed that when they are in a difficulty they are always the noisiest—[Interruption.]It is always the measure of then-own inferiority.
The point I wish to make about this Order is a simple one, but I think important. If hon. Members will read the Order and observe the footnote, which will enable them to come to the point more rapidly than the rather difficult words of the Order itself, they will find the following:
This Order amends the Furniture (Maximum Prices) Order, 1949, as amended, by substituting Related Schedule UF6 for Related Schedule UF5.
These related schedules are not in the Vote Office. They have never been laid in the Library. Therefore hon. Members are not in a position to discuss the Order, because the effective part of it has never been made available to them. That is a serious issue.
If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at another of the Orders we are discussing, No. 236, which is a Ministry of Food Order, they will see that whereas the whole of the new schedule is incorporated in that Order, and therefore anyone who goes to the Vote Office gets the whole story, no one can find out what this Order No. 205, which is a Board of Trade Order, means. That seems to me to make the Order one that has not been properly laid.
I was able to get copies of the two Related Schedules by telephoning to the Board of Trade, where an official was good enough to take their copies out of the library and send them to me at the House. These documents ought to be available to every hon. Member, otherwise it is a complete farce to attempt to debate them. In all probability the only two copies of these Schedules in the Palace of Westminster are the ones in my possession and those in—[Interruption.]It is no privilege in the least


I telephoned, I spoke to the private secretary of the President—[An HON. MEMBER: "Did you say 'thank you'?"] Certainly. I have manners, which is more than some hon. Members have. I asked him for the courtesy of these documents, and he was good enough to be courteous, and I obtained them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will you return them?"] Certainly. Not being a member of the Socialist Party I always return things I borrow.
The point at issue is one of some substance. I discussed it before the proceedings started with the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), and suggested there might be some merit in this Order being postponed, and it cannot be postponed without his permission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not see the point of that cheer. If hon. Members had taken the trouble to look at today's Order Paper, my remarks would have been obvious to them. I put this point to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch because I thought the matter could be considered on this Order and I did not want this procedure to be raised in respect of any other order by the Board of Trade. I think it might be a great advantage if we could postpone the consideration of this Order so that serious constitutional considerations involved might be considered under more favourable conditions than prevail tonight. I would gladly give way to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, if he would care to express a view about whether this course is desirable in respect of this Order.

Mr. Bing: I shall take the opportunity possibly of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, at a later hour.

Sir H. Williams: In view of that, I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order to discuss a document laid before this House which is incomplete and cannot be completed by any action a hon. Member can take in the ordinary way—that is, by obtaining the other parts of the document from the Vote Office or from the Library. When I raised the matter last night the original copy was in the Library, and no copy of that has been placed in the Library or in the Vote Office. I wonder whether this is

a matter on which you could give a Ruling before I proceed with my observations with regard to the merits of the Order.

Mr. Speaker: Give you a Ruling at this time of the morning? I understand that the hon. Member has made several observations, but at this time of the morning I do not know what they were about. I rule that this is in order: that is all I can say.

Sir H. Williams: I had some difficulty in catching your remarks, but I gather they were to the effect that it was in order to continue the discussion of the Prayer against Statutory Instrument No. 205, despite the considerations which I have submitted to you. I shall be grateful——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member might have given me notice if he wanted a Ruling at this time of the morning. How could I have known in advance whether or not it was in order, or in the Vote Office, or laid in the Library or any other place?

Mr. Lennox Boyd: Further to that point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, is it in order for a Statutory Instrument to be presented to Parliament in which two essential schedules are linked neither of which is available to hon. Gentlemen? I agree that it would have been better had you had warning of this point of order, but it is not our fault that this Prayer is being taken at this hour. [Interruption.] Not at all. We are perfectly prepared to postpone consideration of this Order to give you an opportunity to consider the point of order involved.

Mr. Speaker: I am dealing with a point of order about some schedules. These schedules, I gather, appear in the explanatory note, and are intended to indicate its general purport but are not part of the Order.

Sir H. Williams: It is true that I only read the explanatory note on the ground that it was easier to do that, but paragraph I of the Order contains reference to two related schedules not attached to the Order and not available to Members of Parliament. That is my point.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Further to that point of order, I should like to point out that one of my hon. Friends has just handed to me four copies of related schedule UF 5 which he has obtained from the Vote Office.

Sir H. Williams: I am interested to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that these documents are now available in the Vote Office. When I inquired at five o' clock they were not there. They had never heard of them. I expended considerable time in the Library with the assistance of one of the officials. He had never seen them and there was no record of their being there. The curious thing is that the documents sent from the Board of Trade were documents in use and they seem to have been sent some time later today as a result of my telephone inquiry to the Board of Trade. Apparently I am contradicted in that by the representative of the Board of Trade, but it will be easily ascertainable in the morning.

Mr. John E. Haire: The hon. Gentleman should know that these documents have been available for weeks. They have been known to the trade and I am surprised that he cannot get them.

Sir John Mellor: The Home Secretary referred to related schedule UF 5 but the related schedule we are concerned about is UF 6. Has he got that?

Mr. Ede: No. I sent to the Vote Office and received the related schedule I mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it makes any difference at all. So far as I am concerned the Orders are properly laid before the House. They are correct Orders and one cannot complain about them.

Sir H. Williams: The Home Secretary said he had four copies of a particular document, which is only one of the documents. I am told by a representative of the Board of Trade that the documents have always been there. An hon. Friend has just been to the Vote Office, and has been informed that they are not and they have never been there.

Mr. Speaker: That does not interest me in the least. So far as I am concerned

this is properly laid and, therefore, it must be debated as an Order which is properly laid.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Let us have no more of these points of order.

Sir J. Mellor: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you appreciate what this Order does. It substitutes related schedule UF 6 for related schedule UF 5. What we should know is, what is in related schedule UF 6?

Mr. Speaker: Those who are interested knew perfectly well before this Order was laid before the House. I can quite understand. It is half past three in the morning and we are all merry and bright, but it really does not matter.

Sir J. Mellor: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I did not hear what you said owing to the noise which was coming from the other side of the House. Might I ask— [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] Might I have the opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Mr. Speaker, your reply to the point of order which I raised I did not hear owing to the noise of hon. Members opposite. Might I have it again?

Mr. Speaker: There was a point of order but I have forgotten what it was about now.

Sir J. Mellor: Sir J. Mellor rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was standing up when I was standing up. What does he mean by standing up? I am on my feet.

Sir J. Mellor: Sir J. Mellor rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must control himself. I really do not know at the moment what this point of order was. I have ruled that this is quite in order and it remains in order. If the hon. Member objects he can vote against it.

Sir J. Mellor: The reason why I remained on my feet when you addressed me, Mr. Speaker, was that I did not see that you had risen. When you said you had forgotten what the point of order was I was glancing at my papers in order to give it to you again. The point of order was this—this Order seeks to substitute related Schedule UF 6 for related Schedule UF 5. It is, therefore, of im-


portance to know what is in related Schedule UF 6.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member says it is of great importance. It may be; I do not know, but so far as I am concerned this Order is in order and it must be decided now.

Sir H. Williams: I should like to explain the extent of these related schedules which I obtained in the way I indicated. They contain, roughly speaking, the maximum prices of some 150 to 200 items, and the same schedules are in both Orders. Therefore, it would be quite in order for me to read out items from both, because I am entitled to quote from both Orders. However, I do not want to take up too much time. I propose to read sufficient to indicate how the debate on Order 205 is quite impossible unless there is available those parts of it which have not been laid. Therefore, this document is an incomplete Parliamentary document.

Mr. Logan: Will it be in order to quote extracts from the pamphlet the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has in his hand? I submit that if he reads it he must read the lot.

Sir H. Williams: It is well-known to those with any Parliamentary experience that, when taking part in a debate, it is competent to read a Clause of a Bill, a subsection, or any pertinent words, and there is no obligation to read the lot.
I will start with page five of UF 6. The number is the 21st Item, Board of Trade No. F171. The description is "dining chair, with arms, upholstered seat." The distributor's price is £4 1s. 9d. In the previous document the price for the same article was £4. I now take the next Item, and it is necessary for me to read this out because nobody else has a copy. The 22nd Item, Board of Trade Ref. No. F172, is a "dining chair without arms, upholstered seat," and the new price is £2 15s., whereas the old price was £2 13s. 6d.
I am seeking merely to show the increased which have been brought about by these Orders, which are quite unintelligible without these documents, which are still not available in the Vote Office. The next Item is No. 23, F173,"dining chair with arms, upholstered seat, up-

holstered or panelled back." which has been increased from £4 16s. 9d. to £5. The next Item, No. 24, Board of Trade Ref. No. F174, "dining chair without arms, upholstered seat, upholstered or panelled back," shows an increase from £3 3s. 6d. to £3 6s. 9d.
I should not have commenced to read these Items if for at least 30 seconds I had been allowed the courtesy of fair speech. I shall go on reading them until I do get it. I turn to Item No. 25——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says he will merely go on reading what is in the Schedule. That is pure obstruction. [Interruption.] I am talking. Why cannot hon. Members listen? I have something to say. There must be some argument in what the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is saying, and I want to know what is the point of his argument. Just to read out what has increased and what has not increased, is not an argument. I want to know what the argument is.

Sir H. Williams: I have been trying for 20 minutes to make some arguments clear to the House, but most hon. Members have not heard what I have said, and I am certain you have not heard, either, Mr. Speaker. You asked me what is the argument. It is this. These related schedules indicate the price increases that are proposed in the Order we are discussing, and it is in order to show which items are being increased. There is nothing by way of obstruction or tedious repetition in reading to the House, which is unfamiliar with the facts, what prices are being increased. I think that is a legitimate argument. The next Item is No. 26, Board of Trade No. F176,"dining chair without arms, spring upholstered seat and upholstered or panelled back"—and the price has been increased from £3 13s. 6d. to £3 17s. 6d. These increases are somewhat moderate.
I now take a set which appears on page 9 where the increases are more serious. I think there will be no difficulty on anyone's part in appreciating the reasons why I read these figures. We are dealing on page 9 with another set of chairs—No. 64, Board of Trade Item F641,"easy chair, frame made of wood particulars grade 3, minimum springing seat and back".

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. As this is obviously a scandalous abuse of the Rules of the House, is there any way of shutting up the hon. Member?

Sir H. Williams: I have succeeded in establishing with those who are familiar with the use of the House, that when we are discussing a document the only copy of which I have in my possession—apart from the Ministers' copies—and when hon. Members have to decide on the merits of this Order, then they must be acquainted with what is in the document. Previous prices have been raised by a moderate amount, but here the increase is from £13 10s. to £15 17s. 6d. I have here, by way of example, another Item, No. 69, Ref. 5672,"settee, three seats, wood grade one, minimum springing seat and back", and the price is now £39 10s. whereas it was £31 10s.
I now move to a different category— Item No. 71, Board of Trade Ref. No. F691,"bed settee, wood grade 2".

Mr. W. T. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance? In view of this scandalous abuse of the privileges of the House, is it in order for the hon. Member to be heard? May I move that he be no longer heard?

Mr. Speaker: So long as the hon. Member is in order, I can do nothing; my opinion, whatever it may be, is another matter. I might do something later.

Mr. W. T. Williams: I move, "That the hon. Member be no longer heard."

Hon. Members: I second that.

Sir H. Williams: I only quoted all these items—and after all, I have not quoted many out of the 150—to show hon. Members something which they do not seem to know. As I have not indulged in tedious repetition——

Mr. Haire: On a point of order. As I understand it, the hon. Member says that other hon. Members are not familiar with the prices of the items he is reading out. I submit that all these figures have been available since 7th February and have been known to the whole of our furniture industry. The hon. Member is indulging in repetition about facts which are well known.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer——

Miss Irene Ward: Miss Irene Ward (Tynemouth) rose——

Mr. Speaker: How dare the hon. Lady stand up when I am on my feet? There was a point of order which I was answering, and she should not have risen. I was about to say that I cannot answer because I am not acquainted with the trade, but these figures have, I understand, been published. If the hon. Member chooses to repeat them it is his affair, although I must say it seems a little unnecessary at a quarter to four in the morning. The Speaker has to be on duty again at eleven o'clock, and there have been previous occasions. The business of the House comes first, but there are human considerations. Giving figures which have been known to the trade does seem to be unnecessary on the part of the hon. Member.

Sir H. Williams: I take punctilious care, Mr. Speaker, as you will agree, never to break the rules of order, and the mere fact that certain people outside this House have these documents while hon. Members say they have not access to them, makes it perfectly clear that I am doing something in quoting from the documents which is entirely desirable. If we are to know about the Orders, the Board of Trade should have performed its statutory duty by laying the Orders; it would not then have been necessary for me to read what I have read.
I was quoting the example of the settees which have been raised from £31 10s. 0d. to £39 10s. 0d., and I think every hon. Member will agree that that is a very large increase to have taken place in a period of rather less than a year. So far as there has been a waste of time up to now, that has been due largely to the fact that a considerable number of the hon. Members present are clearly desirous of making it impossible for hon. Members who desire to address the House to do it in a proper way. I would have finished my remarks long ago if the normal customary courtesy of one lot of Members to another had been exercised.
I am coming now to a completely different category of furniture, from which I will quote two examples which it is difficult to follow. In the case of an upholstered divan with wooden frame, the


price has gone from £8 to £9; but the next item, an upholstered divan with wooden frame, edges sprung or stuffed and stitched, they both remain at £15 16s. 9d. It is hard to understand why there should be this inconsistency, because in both cases the cost of production must have risen. Yet in one case the price is unchanged; in the other, it goes from £8 to £9, an increase of roughly 12½ per cent.
These are matters about which I think we ought to have an answer in due course from a Minister who presumably enjoys the confidence of those who do not desire to hear the arguments of other hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the argument?"] I can only suggest that hon. Members might have heard some argument if they took advantage of the gift which Almighty God gave them when He provided them with two ears and only one mouth. That is a suggestion which I make to them. I have no doubt that the considerations which induced the President of the Board of Trade to sign this Order are considerations similar to those advanced in connection with the Order which we discussed previously, namely, that there has been a substantial increase in the cost of raw materials, an increase in wages and in other matters, and that, as a result, the cost of producing furniture is oppressively higher.

Mr. Speaker: That is not dealt with in the Order. The Order deals with an increase of price, not with policy.

Sir H. Williams: I am in a difficulty over that, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.do think that it is a little unfair that I cannot address you, Sir, on a point of order, about which you have just commented, because it is impossible for you to hear what I am saying. When I said I was in a difficulty, I was in a difficulty on this ground. When we were discussing the previous Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, who was in the Chair, permitted a discussion on the point which I was about to raise. Therefore, I tacitly assumed that as discussion on this point was permitted in the Debates on the previous Order—the considerations which brought about an increase of prices—I would not have been regarded as disorderly in raising the point on this Order.

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that the point having been made once, that is enough. Therefore, we shall not have it this time. At any rate, I rule that out of order.

Sir H. Williams: While you were speaking, Mr. Speaker, I was unable to hear a word, because of ceaseless interruptions. I understand you rule it out of order to make any reference to the causes which have brought about this increase in price. When we were discussing the order with regard to sewing cotton, which also involves increases in price, Mr. Deputy-Speaker permitted from both sides of the House discussions with regard to the causes which had brought about these things. Naturally I bow to your Ruling. But I did want to indicate, with great respect, that I was not seeking to make the point in the same context.

Mr. Speaker: After all, the point has been made, and therefore to make it again would be repetition. Having been made once, it cannot be made again on this.

Sir H. Williams: Further to that point of order. I should have thought it could not be repetition, because the previous point was made on a different Order. [Interruption.]It is perfectly legitimate to enter into respectful representation to Mr. Speaker. With regard to the point of order, Mr. Speaker said he came in when the debate had already started. We are now dealing with order No. 205 and it is not a repetition of order No. 166.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think so. Even if one says the point is Government policy and one has been allowed to discuss Government policy which increased prices, it may increase prices on one Order and it may increase prices on the lot. That point having been made, that should be ruled out for all the future Orders which may come before us during the early hours this morning. We have discussed it once. The Deputy-Speaker has allowed it. I cannot allow any discussion on that point again.

Sir H. Williams: In view of that Ruling, as I am debarred now from discussing the merits of the Order entirely, I can only beg to move the Motion.

Sir J. Mellor: I rise to second the Motion.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: If I accept the Closure, that is an undebatable Motion.

Question "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would value very much your guidance on this matter. I understand that if the Closure is moved on a Prayer, then the Prayer can be put down for another day. May I ask you to advise us on that?

Mr. Speaker: I should like notice of that. I have no idea when these things are sprung on me.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was equally sprung on us that the Closure was to be moved. I must ask you, with great respect, if it is not a fact that a Prayer cannot be counted out without being raised again on another day, nor can the Closure be moved on a Prayer without it being raised again.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is rather impertinent, if I may say so. If hon. Members can be angry, I can be angry too. I have listened for a long time to what I may describe as a great deal of nonsense. I was quite prepared to accept this Closure, having heard all that. I have been in this House for a long time. I can understand obstruction and all that sort of thing at 4 o'clock in the morning. I do not mind, but I am not going to stand any nonsense all the same. It is not very good for the House of Commons, all this nonsense in the small hours of the morning.

Mr. James Stuart: Mr. James Stuart (Moray and Nairn) rose——

Mr. Speaker: If any objection is made to my accepting the Closure I do not mind in the least. I think it is well deserved.

Mr. Stuart: It is only reasonable to ask that a reply should be given. So long as hon. Members who have been speaking on this Prayer are not ruled out of order it seems to me unfair to suggest that there has been a lot of nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "We all know there has."] As long as hon. Members are not out of order they have a perfect right to put their case, and it is perfectly normal to expect a reply from the Government.

Mr. Speaker: Then the right hon. Member can put down a Motion of Censure on the Speaker if he so chooses. At four o'clock in the morning my temper may be a bit short, the same as that of other hon. Members.

Miss Ward: Further to that point of order, Sir. May I draw your attention to the fact that the housewives have never heard why the price of furniture is to be increased. We should like to know through the responsible Government spokesman why the price of furniture is to be increased. It is a matter of very great importance to us, and I am very disappointed that I am not able to learn the reason for that increase.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

IRON AND STEEL SCRAP (PRICES)

4.0 a.m.

Wing Commander Bullus: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 8th February, 1951, entitled the Iron and Steel Scrap Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 208), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be annulled.
I sincerely hope that the Minister of Supply will give me an answer to some of the points I want to raise, because I am seriously seeking information. I should like to ask if these increased prices are due to the shortage of this raw material, and I should like to have a categorical answer. I am aware that the imports of scrap we have received in these post-war years from Germany have now dried up. I realise that the United States are importing more scrap from Europe. I should like to know if the shortages of


this metal are due to the fact that ships have been diverted by the Government to import coal and that therefore the shortage of this material has been accentuated and this increase in price has been necessitated.
If the Minister can envisage in the not too distant future further rises of price, is it not likely that scrap will be held back until higher prices are forthcoming? I suggest that these present increases are due wholly to the Government policy in the past. I suggest that the Government must accept the blame for the shortage and therefore for causing the increase of prices. The House passed a resolution on Friday condemning the Government for their past policy. I seek this information now, and I hope I shall have the privilege of an answer because I have been brief.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.

4.2 a.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) should be seeking information about why additional prices are being paid for scrap. He has himself given the real reason. It is because scrap is at a premium today. We have ceased to get the supplies of scrap we used to get from Germany to keep up production of steel at its present level and it is essential that every ounce of scrap in this country should be collected.
Hon. Members opposite who are always talking about incentives, private enterprise, setting people free and advocating profits and wanting to get things vitally necessary for the country, ought to know the simple and logical reason why people have now to be given an incentive to go out into the wilds and gather scrap that has been lying around rusting and rotting for years. The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that the Iron and Steel Federation pays a subsidy, and has done so for years, for the collection of uneconomic scrap, and has paid for it by taking money from economic scrap which is easy to obtain. To ask such a simple question at this time of the morning, and in this day and age, is a reflection on the intelligence of ordinary individuals.

4.4 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr John Freeman): I can answer briefly the questions put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus). This Order gives an increased commission of 1¼ per cent. on the commissions allowed to scrap merchants in the collection of scrap. It is necessary for two reasons. In the first place the commission has not been increased since 1940. It seems reasonable that the increase should be allowed because costs have risen considerably over that period of nearly 11 years.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has just pointed out, we desire to give dealers every incentive at the moment to bring in every ton of scrap they can. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to suppose that this increase would reflect itself in an increase in the price of steel. The fact is that the increase this Order permits in commission to scrap dealers is approximately the equivalent of one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the price of ingot steel, and that it is not reflected in any increase whatever in the price of steel

Question put, and negatived.

CANDLES (MAXIMUM PRICES)

4.5 a.m.

Wing Commander Bullus: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 7th February, 1951, entitled the Candles (Maximum Prices) Order, 1951 (S.I. 1951, No 206), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be annulled.
I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for rising to speak on two Orders in succession, but unfortunately one of my colleagues is absent and, as my name is second on the list, it falls to me to move the Motion. The Motion I am now proposing is on behalf of the harassed housewife—[Interruption.]Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite do not think that the housewife is harassed today.

Mr. Hamilton: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there are fewer than 25 Members, present on the benches opposite?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Wing Commander Bullus: I was suggesting that perhaps Members opposite do not think the housewife is harassed today. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) spoke earlier of the rising prices of cotton, and here is another small increase, this time on candles. The housewife has to pay for these increases, and undoubtedly she is a very harassed woman. I suggest that candles have taken on an enhanced value in view of the recent electricity cuts. It is possible that there will be a scramble for candles because they are of especial value if at some peak hour the electricity is suddenly cut off. Therefore, I think it is wrong that this increase, however small, in price, which affects the housewife today, should go by default. The Government must accept responsibility for many of these increases which have been thrust on the housewives of the country in recent months. There seems to be no evidence that it will stop.

Sir Harold Roper: I beg to second the Motion.

4.8 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): This Order came into operation on 14th February, and it raised the price of candles from 74s. 10d. a case of 72 pound to 77s. 9d., an increase of 2s. 11d. The maximum price a pound was raised by ½d., from Is. 2d. to Is. 2½d. It is a maximum price. It is due to an increase of £4 10s. in the price of scale wax from which candles are manufactured, the price of which is fixed by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The distributors did not gain any additional profits from the increase in prices. For several years the prices have been varied only to reflect the corresponding changes in raw materials prices.

Mr. Nally: Before my hon. Friend sits down, would he care to explain why candles which are coloured or of a special shape and are on sale in Lewis's and other departmental stores, should because they are coloured or specially shaped, sell at prices ranging to 1s. 8d. a box?

Question put, and negatived.

UTILITY WATERPROOFS (MAXIMUM PRICES)

4.10 a.m.

Mr. Braine: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 2nd February, 1951, entitled the Utility Apparel (Waterproofs) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1951 (S.T., 1951, No. 167), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be annulled.
I have not been a Member of the House very long, but I must confess that the experience of the last few hours has been very revealing. I have been here long enough, however, to observe that there seem to be too many of these Statutory Instruments affecting the daily lives of the citizens of this country which pass almost unnoticed. During the course of our debates this morning our temerity in putting down these interrogatory Prayers has been challenged. I offer no apology for putting down this particular Prayer, since it is the duty of Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Vote"]. It does not lie in my mouth to educate hon. Members opposite. It is the duty of Parliament to probe and inquire into the actions of Ministers. I suggest that to do so in this particular instance is most revealing. I am not going to take the House back very far.
The original Order in this case was made in August of last year, which is not so very long ago. It provided for an increase in manufacturers' maximum prices. But so little control does His Majesty's Government exercise over the march of events that their decrees are out of date before the ink is dry upon the Minister's signature, and by November of last year it became necessary for a further Order to be issued. The situation had deteriorated to a point where it became necessary within the space of a few months for further increases in manufacturers' prices to be imposed. Now, three months later, a further Order is to be made.
It may be that these new prices are fully justified. Prices of raw materials are increasing at such a rate that manufacturers are continually complaining of delays by the Board of Trade in adjusting the prices they are permitted to charge to meet changing circumstances. It was very refreshing of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to admit, as he did from the Despatch


Box this morning, that that was so and that already this particular Order may be out of date. What guarantee can there be, in the light of the experiences of the last few months, that it will not become out of date in a week or so from now?
If this proves anything at all, it shows that, despite all the immense planning powers that right hon. Gentlemen possess, despite the development councils that they have fastened upon industry, they exercise no control over the things which really matter. They cannot control the prices of raw materials. The Order which this Prayer seeks to annul, and the circumstances in which it was made, demolish any case that may be made on the other side of the House for what is called planned economy. I hope I shall be forgiven for straying perilously near the bounds of order if I read a relevant quotation from a speech made by the Lord President of the Council as recently as 1946. He said then:
The real problems of statesmanship in the field of industry and economics are to see trouble coming and to prevent ourselves getting into the smash. We are determined that we are not going to be caught unawares by blind uneconomic forces under this administration.
Yet that is precisely what has happened. The public now know the value of outpourings of that kind.
I invite the House to consider some of the increases authorised under this draft Order. Last August, for example, the manufacturers' price to the retailers of one kind of waterproof coat was 54s. 2d.; it has now jumped to 60s. 9d. If one translates that into what the poor, harassed public has to pay in the shops, it means that a coat which cost 72s. 6d. six months ago will now cost 81s.

Mr. H. Hynd: Might I emphasise to the hon. Member that these are maximum prices, and there is nothing which prevents the shopkeepers from charging less than the maximum prices.

Mr. Remnant: Except the price of the materials.

Mr. Braine: That is an interesting point. Indeed, I went into a shop yesterday in order to make certain inquiries about these matters, and I found that there were a number of gentlemen's

raincoats selling at prices below the maximum. For the purpose of my argument, however, I am taking the maximum prices permitted by the Board of Trade. In the case of youths' waterproof coats, the retail price is increased from 67s. 1d. to 75s. an increase of nearly 8s., while in the case of lightweight boys' and girls' mackintoshes, the increase is from 25s. 4d. to 27s. 5d. I understand—and this is relevant to the argument I am advancing —that since last autumn there has been a general increase in the price of most children's garments of about 20 per cent., and that by next autumn the increase will be of the order of 30 per cent. I speak as one directly concerned. I am the father of three small, rapidly-growing sons, and I know from experience how difficult it is to feed and clothe them, but how much more difficult must it be for the millions of families in this country whose incomes are smaller than mine?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must come back to the Order.

Mr. Braine: With great respect, I should have thought it was relevant to discuss whether these price increases are justified.

Mr. Speaker: No; that is a general question. These are not necessarily increases; they are maximum prices. We cannot discuss, on an Order, general considerations like that which the hon. Member mentions, I am afraid.

Mr. Braine: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members opposite should also be grateful to you, for I was about to reveal one or two matters which would have been extremely uncomfortable for them, at a time when they are becoming increasingly uncomfortable about other things.
Nevertheless I suggest that the House is entitled to an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that there will be no more increases of this kind. Of course, the House is well aware that he can give no such assurance. I do not speak in a personal way of him, but the fact is that the whole Front Bench opposite are tired and dispirited and utterly at the end of their tether. If, however, an assurance of that kind cannot be given, then these Statutory Instruments are worse than useless. But at least the Minister should tell us whether the Order reflects the


existing situation. Is it not already out of date? It is because I sense that this Order is out of date and that Instruments of this kind are a sign of despair and a confession of failure on the part of the Government that I pray for its annulment.

4.20 a.m.

Squadron Leader Burden: I beg to second the Motion.
I want to draw attention to what I believe to be an important aspect of these price increases. We have to understand that in regard to a great many garments not only is the price being increased but the quality is being debased. I am concerned that in this Order there is no description of the cloth from which these waterproofs are manufactured. It gives numbers, but they in themselves mean nothing whatever to the public. In fact, there is a loophole for abuse through not marking garments with the name of the material from which they are manufactured.
I should like the Minister to consult with his advisers and friends in the wool trade, in which he has considerable experience, to endeavour to bring some system of marking into operation. Then if a garment is made of wool and rayon, or wool and cotton, or wool and fibre, that fact can be shown in these Orders; and it will be seen if the material is not wool. I suggest that the present system is misleading the public. In view of the rising prices, there is a case for seeing that the public are protected against debasements of quality occurring at the same time as increases in price. I believe the Australian and New Zealand Governments have already complained about cloth which includes rayon and cotton being described as "wool." They regard that as objectionable because it is a misrepresentation of the term "wool."
Is it not possible for the Minister to see his fellow members of the wool trade to ensure that in future these terms are not abused by the infusion of material other than wool in the garments? I believe all hon. Members will agree that every effort should be made to maintain standards and to enable the public to know what they are buying. Certainly they did not know what they were buying in 1945, but we shall see what we can do about that at the next election. In America they have a strict system of

labelling, and I am sure it is not beyond the ingenuity of hon. Members opposite to do what is being done in America, particularly if they are anxious to ensure that the people of this country are not to be constantly led up the garden path.

4.24 a.m.

Mr. Bing: Although my name is attached to these Prayers, I have not had a chance of intervening in the debate mainly because I had not a stock of points of order to put to you, Mr. Speaker, to enable me to put my view in that form. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) put our names to these Prayers because we felt that there should be a certainty that the House would be enabled to decide immediately on this question. It is very undesirable that the trade should be held in suspense in these matters. It would be wrong for hon. Members to say that a discussion would be on a certain day and then to take the subject off the Order Paper.
I intervene now because of the serious attack made on the trade by the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron-Leader Burden). If he really feels that the trade has behaved in this way, then he should take the honest step and divide the House.

Squadron-Leader Burden: It is not a question of the trade at all. The description of the cloth is made by the Board of Trade and not by the trade associations.

Mr. Bing: It seems that the motives between the hon. and gallant Member and myself are different. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke and I added our names to the Prayer because we thought that if the matter had been looked at impartially, it would have been unnecessary for the Minister to intervene. Hon. Members could have formed their own views. But that is not the attitude of hon. Members opposite. They say that the Government have behaved improperly, and that something very wrong has happened. Well, if that is so, there is a fine array of Whips on the Front Bench. Make use of them.
This is, after all, the policy of the trade associations and I sometimes think that we are yielding too much to their views. My hon. Friend was quite right——

Squadron Leader Burden: What evidence can the hon. Member produce that the trade associations are responsible for Government instructions?

Mr. Bing: The hon. and gallant Member really should study HANSARD. He should, for example, look at the Questions asked by his hon. Friends before he makes speeches about things on which, one would think, they know far more than he does. He must make his own speeches in his own way and in his own time, but I would remind him that the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), far from objecting to these increases, pressed for an increase on 15th February—as recently as that. He asked why utility cotton drill had been increased by about sixpence a yard while there had been no price increase to manufacturers whose raw material prices had increased. Hon. Members opposite should decide which way they are going to have it. Are they going to vote with the hon. Member for The High Peak or not?
If hon. Members put down seven Prayers, they should have the courage to vote on them. I feel that in some ways I can speak, not unfairly I hope, on behalf of all those who are praying, because my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke and I are the only two hon. Members whose names appear on all of the Prayers; and we feel there should be one Division. If we are to have a Division, why move the other Prayers? What point of principle is so important that long discussion is necessary, although it is not worth while voting on?

Mr. James Stuart: May I give a very brief answer? Quite shortly, one can pray in order to receive an explanation from the Government. Is not that the whole object of debate, and is it necessary to divide, provided that the Government are intelligent enough to give a reasoned answer?

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will call the attention of Mr. Speaker to articles in the London Press, and notably the evening newspapers yesterday, in which it was clearly stated that the reason for putting down these Prayers was not to obtain information but to harass and wear down the Government by keeping a handful of

Conservatives here with a large number of Government supporters?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That is not a point of order.

4.30 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): If I were the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), I should not worry about the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden), because the hon. and gallant Member was referring to the wrong Order. He was referring to a cloth Order, and not a garment Order. If the hon. and gallant Member had spoken the last time there was a Prayer on that subject, he would have been in order, but he is not in order on the matter we are discussing this morning. The objects of the Order are to increase the maximum prices of most utility waterproofs to conform with increases in the price of cotton cloth, to increase the allowances for detachable hoods, to specify three additional rayon cloths for all single texture utility waterproofs, except cycle capes, men's and youths' coats, girls' capes with hoods and boys' and girls' sou'westers.
In reply to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), may I say that, with regard to his last question, we refused to raise the maximum prices for minor garments until reasons had been received from the trade. The reasons have been sent in by the manufacturers with regard to some garments and we are reviewing them.

Mr. Braine: Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, may I ask him a question. The whole object of my putting down this Prayer was to ascertain whether, since in six months there have been three increases of price——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member is asking a question, he may proceed, but he appears to be making a statement.

Mr. Braine: May I put my question in this way? In the last six months there have been three increases of price. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the House an assurance that the Order which is placed before it now, is not already out of date, and that in a month or


two months or three months, there will not be a further Order?

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the AyesMr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

WOMEN'S OVERALLS AND APRONS

4.36 a.m.

Squadron Leader Burden: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 8th February 1951, entitled the Utility Apparel (Women's Domestic Overalls and Aprons) (Manufacture and Supply) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 213), a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be annulled.

Mr. William Ross: The prayers of the wicked will be as nothing.

Squadron Leader Burden: Hon. Members opposite should not now be so restive, because we are coming rapidly to the end of these Prayers. This particular Prayer refers to ladies' overalls. I am sure that hon. Members opposite, many of whom help with the washing up, will be very concerned to ensure that the price of ladies' overalls does not increase too much and to ensure that the quality is maintained. In spite of the vigilance of hon. Members opposite I see that the No. 2 women's overall is described as the "women's Empire slip-on overall." The word "Empire" must have slipped through without being noticed by hon. Members opposite, for the word is anathema to them. Indeed, they might annul the Order so that they can change the description to the "women's Commonwealth slip-on overall."
In view of the price increase that this Order enables the Minister to agree with the trade, I again raise the question of the maintenance of quality. I feel sure that many hon. Members opposite will agree that with price increases there must be an assurance that the quality of the garment will be maintained. If quality is to be decreased—and I hope it is not— it will mean that the cost to the housewife is to be increased considerably over the amount permitted under this Order. I would like an assurance that the Gov-

ernment will see that prices shall not be increased under this Order more than the necessary amount, and also that the quality shall be maintained in each category at the same standard as that of a year ago.
I would point out to the Minister that there have been complaints about colour fastness, and instances of a debasing of quality resulting from the fact that colours were not as fast as they had been. There has been more shrinkage, also indicating a debasing of the quality. I ask the Minister if he has received any complaints, of this sort, and, if so, what he has done to deal with them. I am informed that about these new qualities there have also been complaints of considerable shrinkage after the garment has been made up, and that in many instances rubber solution has been used for seaming, instead of stitching, all of which reduces the quality. I would like to be assured by the Minister that the quality of aprons now going on the market will stand up to laundry and dry cleaning as well as those in the same-category a year ago.
I would also ask the Minister to look particularly at the matter of sizes, and to ensure that size standards are maintained. All these points are extremely important if the Minister and his Department are anxious to maintain that high standard of workmanship and high standard of cloth that goes into utility apparel. There has been a marked tendency to anonymity in description, and I would like to ask if it is the Government's intention to continue this policy, which is—perhaps not purposely—misleading to the public.

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Remnant: I beg to second the Motion.
Perhaps I shall get more agreement in the House this time by putting in some good words for these Statutory Instruments. As a comparatively new Member of the House. I readily admit that I learned a considerable amount from my study of this Instrument and the research which followed. The more I learned, the more unsatisfactory the position seemed. It raised suspicions in my mind.
I support the suggestions put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend in moving this Prayer, but I will not repeat what he said, because my in-


formation accorded so closely with his. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, if he is to reply, to clear away my suspicions, if they are wrongly formed, by giving an assurance that the articles being sold under this Statutory Instrument are in no way—in standards, shrinkage and colour—less good than they were before.

4.47 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): This Order provides for higher garment prices to take account of the increase in cotton cloth prices. It also permits the manufacturer of cotton utility overalls to use four new utility cloths recently added to the utility range. In the Utility Cotton Cloth Order the use of Egyptian yarns in either the warp, or the weft, or both, of utility cloths, instead of American yarns, entitles the cloth producer to charge a higher price for the cloth. The Order under discussion permits an increase of five and ten per cent. respectively in the price of the garments, in consequence of the price increases for these cloths. A manufacturer is allowed to charge an

additional 15 per cent. when selling to a retailer if the manufacturer has a regular selling organisation for supplying the retail trade but only five per cent. if he has not such an organisation. I could not hear much of what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but what little I did hear was out of order.

4.48 a.m.

Mr. Janner: In view of the very satisfactory reply we have had from the Minister, I think it is important that something should be said, after the terrible farce we have had tonight, to indicate to the country that unless a vote is taken on this Motion the Opposition will be shown not to have been serious in these Prayers and to have been playing a game with a view to deceiving the electorate. If they refrain from voting, the country should know that the Opposition are satisfied with the Minister's answer.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 0, Noes, 182.

Division No 55.]
AYES
[4.50 a.m


NIL


TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mr. Bing and Mr. Donnelly.


NOES


Albu, A. H.
Davies, A Edward (Stoke, N)
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)


Allen, A C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hamilton, W. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Deer, G
Hargreaves, A.


Balfour, A
Delargy, H. J
Harrison, J.


Barnes, Rt Hon A. J
Diamond, J.
Hastings, Dr. Somervills


Bartley, P
Dodds, N. N.
Hayman, F. H.


Benn, Hon A N Wedgwood
Driberg, T. E N
Holman, P.


Beswick, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W Bromwich)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Blenkinsop, A
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)


Blyton, W. R
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Booth, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bottomley, A. G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ewart, R.
Janner, B.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St Pancras. S)


Brook, D (Halifax)
Field. Capt. W J
Jenkins, R. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Finch, H. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington E)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Butler, H W. (Hackney, S)
Fool. M. M.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)


Callaghan, James
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Champion, A J
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Keenan, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Gibson, C. W
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Coldrick, W.
Gilzean, A
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E


Collick, P.
Gooch, E G
Lee, F. (Newton)


Collindridge, F.
Greenwood, A. W. J (Rossendale)
Lever, L M (Ardwick)


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Grenfell, D. R.
Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Peckham)
Grey, C. F.
Lindgren, G S


Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Logan, D. G.


Crawley, A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Longden, F. (Small Heath)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Grimond, J.
MacColl, J. E.


Crossman, R. H. S
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
MoGhee, H. G.


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Mack, J. D.




McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Pearson, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McLeavy, F.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Poole, Cecil
Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Popplewell, E.
Tomney, F.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Porter, G.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mellish, R. J
Price, M. Philips (Gloucesteuhire, w)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Messer, F.
Proctor, W. T
Viant, S. P.


Mikardo, Ian
Rees, Mrs. D.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Mitchison, G. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Moeran, E. W.
Rhodes, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E)


Monslow, W.
Robens, A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wigg, George


Morley,[...] S.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wilkins, W. A.


Moyle, A.
Royle, C
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mulley, F. W
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Willey, O. G- (Cleveland)


Nally, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdingion)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Neal, H.
Simmons, C J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Slater, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


O'Brien, T,
Snow, J. W
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Oldfield, W H
Sorensen, R. W.
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brighlside)


Orbach, M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir F.
Wise, Major I. J


Padley, W. E.
Sparks, J. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Pannell, T. C.
Sylvester, G. O.



Pargiter, G A.
Taylor, H. S. (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parker, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Bowden and


Paton, J
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. In view of the characteristic lack of guts by the Opposition—
—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Order! I cannot allow the hon. Member or any other hon. Member to use that sort of language in this House.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Snow: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, did you instruct me to withdraw?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: On a point of order. For the purposes of the record, may I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that when a Division was taken there were fewer than 50 members of the Opposition here present?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question was not a point of order, and I must ask hon. Members using the phrase to confine themselves to what are strictly points of order.

Mr. James Stuart: I do not wish to raise a point of order which is not a point of order. I will not make any reference to the unattractive remarks which have been voiced from the other side of the House; but might I put it to you—[Interruption.] May I be allowed to put to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker without interruption from the other side——

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman

the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) is already speaking to a point of order.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Stuart: If it would place me in order, I will submit this as a point of order. I hope I shall not be interrupted. [Interruption.]"I do not wish to submit it as a point of order, but I cannot get on. In view of the fact that the last Division seems to have been a minor revolt on the part of the Government's supporters, would you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, exercise your perfectly proper right in future in asking those Members who are opposing the Government to stand up in their places, and save the time of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a matter, of course, about which the Chair must exercise its own discretion. Mr. Crouch. [Interruption.]The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), must restrain himself, otherwise I shall have to take some action in regard to him.

Mr. O'Brien: Mr. O'Brien (Nottingham, North-West) rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. O'Brien: Further to the last point of order, having regard to the result of the last Division and the manner of its taking, and having regard to the fact that the Division was caused in the first instance by the Opposition tabling a Motion,


is not their action in refraining from supporting their own Motion, contempt of this House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not infrequently the practice to move a Motion and not to vote on it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot have these repeated points of order, many of which are not points of order at all. I hope hon. Members will refrain from putting further points of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and permit the Motions on the Order Paper to proceed. Mr. Crouch.

Mr. John Lewis: On a point of order——

Mr. Janner: On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Janner.

Mr. Janner: May I ask your guidance——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Be quiet. My hon. Friend is asking a question of Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Janner: For the purpose of the business of this House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what can you suggest to prevent this kind of farcical arrangement from taking place in the future? In the interests of the country and the proper procedure of this House, if this kind of practice is continued in the future,, is there any method by which the House can protect itself?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House is, of course, master of its own affairs and it can make use of its own procedure to carry out whatever it wishes. Mr. Crouch.

SACKS (CHARGES)

5.5 a.m.

Mr. Crouch: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 14th February 1951, entitled the Feeding Stuffs (Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 236), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be annulled.

We have been discussing a number of non-consumable goods——

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members must permit the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) to proceed.

Mr. Crouch: This Order deals with a consumable commodity, for it applies to food. It will affect the cost of living of the people of this country. There have been continual rises in the prices of foodstuffs. This is a commodity which is not directly consumed by hon. Members opposite, although——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): On a point of order. This is an amending Order which in no way affects any costs other than the cost of sacks. In view of that fact, I suggest that the hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me. This Order is apparently restricted to sacks.

Mr. Crouch: The Order puts up the price of feedingstuffs; it says so.

Mr. Willey: As the hon. Member is well aware, this amending Order relates only to charges in respect of sacks It in no way affects the cost of feedingstuffs. If a farmer pays more as a deposit on a sack, he receives more when he returns the sack.

Mr. Crouch: The hon Member says——

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! I cannot hear whether the hon. Member is referring to sacks or to anything else. Hon. Members must permit me to hear what the hon. Member in possession of the Floor has to say.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Would it be in order for the House to adjourn while the hon. Member reads his brief?

Mr. Deedes: On a point of order. In view of what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary, why is the Order in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food and not in the name of the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question does not arise. Mr. Crouch.

Major Legge-Bourke: In regard to the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, may I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Explanatory Memorandum on the back of the Order Paper, the last sentence of which, in brackets, reads:
This has necessitated consequential amendments to the basic prices of feeding-stuffs.

Mr. Willey: If the hon. Member will look at the Schedules of prices, he will see that some items are inclusive of the sacks, so the farmer buys the feedingstuffs and the sacks. This Order only affects sacks.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that if a greater charge was made for a sack, the farmer got back a larger sum when he returned the sack; but unfortunately the Note at the back deals with sacks which are non-returnable.

The Deputy-Speaker: I have received Mr. Speaker's Ruling, which is that this Order only refers to sacks.

Mr. Crouch: This Order refers to the basic prices per ton of feedingstuffs, and it increases the cost of them.

The Deputy-Speaker: No, I must rule that this Order refers to sacks and the hon. Member is only entitled to refer to sacks; not feedingstuffs.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Crouch rose—

Mr. Bing: Would it not be possible to include with the sackcloth the ashes as well?

Mr. Crouch: We have quite a number of instances in this Order of sacks being used to bag similar articles being charged at different rates; and if hon. Members will look at the back of the Order they will see a difference of three-halfpence for precisely the same article—wet brewers' grains. That is on page 15 of the Order. It is known that one cannot bag things to keep in fit and proper condition—things such as feedingstuffs—in paper containers. In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary may say, this is going to affect the price of production on each and every farm, and it is going to have its reflection in the price of our food. I hope that when the Minister

replies he will not attribute the rise in the cost of these sacks to the war in Korea.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, may I ask whether the war in Korea is in the bag yet?

Mr. Crouch: In moving this Motion, I submit that the Government are not entitled, with the present price structure for agricultural commodities, and the necessity of trying to keep a more even keel, to put on charges of this kind. They may appear to be small, but if these little increases are added up, they quickly amount to a considerable sum.

5.16 a.m.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to second the Motion.
You have ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my remarks shall be-confined to the subject of sacks. I propose to comply with that Ruling. It is a little strange that we should find the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food replying to a debate on the subject of sacks. I should have expected to find the task falling to the President of the Board of Trade. I think that I am entitled to make the point, that this Order does in fact affect sacks, and the price of sacks, and is in effect associated with the cost of feedingstuffs and so with the agricultural community. It is just one more of those things which certain hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House attribute to "feather-bedding."This is one of those things out of which hon. Members opposite occasionally art very happy to make capital.
So that I may confine myself to the subject of sacks, I must touch upon a basic problem associated with the problem, which is the supply and the price of jute. I would assure hon. Members that jute is in fact the raw material from which sacks are made, and that it is fundamental to the whole of the Schedules in the Order. We have here one of those economic difficulties created largely, I believe, as a result of political difficulties.
In this case the problem confronting us is a problem of relationships between India and Pakistan. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong on this, because it does concern other nations besides ours. I understand that


our imports of jute, on which we depend for sacks, are divided into two categories. About half are imported as raw material from Pakistan, and about half in finished goods from India. When the pound was devalued, Pakistan did not devalue the rupee. Thus Pakistan, which was producing the raw jute and selling it to India, who manufactured it into sacks, had in effect raised the price of raw jute by about 40 per cent. From the moment of the devaluation of the pound, the Indian mills, which were manufacturing sacks from the raw jute, were, in fact, in short supply.
We are now getting about one-quarter of the normal allocation from India, which is about 100,000 tons a year, although our supplies of the raw material from Pakistan are about normal. The raw material, 100,000 tons, or thereabouts, goes to the vicinity of Dundee— and the Secretary of State for War is not here to contradict me—where it is converted into the finished product. The basic cause of this Order is the fact that our supplies of the finished sacks from India has fallen heavily in the last 12 or 18 months. The point that should be brought home to the hon. Gentleman is that we are wholly dependent upon India for our supplies of finished products.

Mr. Harold Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the sheer hollow-ness of the argument he is now perpetrating upon this House, owing to the fact that his own leader, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) wanted at one period to withhold from India, sterling balances which would have produced economic activity there? Had we followed his policy, sacks would have been dearer still; and the other source, Italy, was insulted by him.

Mr, Deedes: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to finish the argument, he will see how that comes into the picture. India is the sole source from which we can obtain these supplies. Two things have happened. The first is the draw on India of the dollar market, and I think the hon. Gentleman would not deny that a number of contracts we have made for the finished products have been cancelled and we have lost them, and the materials on which we were counting have

gone to the dollar market. Secondly, as a result of the black market which began in India, the Indians imposed a ferocious export duty of 60 to 70 per cent. It raised the price from 140s. to 230s. per 100 yards. That is part of the price that we are paying and part of the price that is reflected in this instrument.
The first fundamental point that arises out of this is that we are now wholly dependent upon India for the supply of this vital commodity. An agreement has been reached between India and Pakistan, and it is hoped that as a result something like 2,500,000 bales will be available in the first 12-month period of the agreement coming into effect, which will ease the situation. But the sack pipeline is now empty and it will be about nine months before any agreement between India and Pakistan will replenish it.

Mr. Scholefield Alien: If we are discussing the relationship between Pakistan and India, is it not deplorable that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) is not present?

Mr. Deedes: We are, in fact, discussing sacks.

Mr. Jack Jones: Does the hon. Member not realise that this Order is seeking to do the very thing he wishes the Government to do? As the House knows, I am an amateur gardener. This year sacks—eight new sacks from Scotland—have been charged to me at 2s. 6d. per sack returnable, whereas previously the charge was Is.? This year I have sent back my sacks to get the pound. Previously I did not worry about recovering the shilling. People will now return the sacks to those who want them, instead of wasting them.

Mr. Deedes: If I may conclude this part of my argument, the important thing to bear in mind is that we are wholly dependent on India, which is not a good thing in regard to any commodity, and every effort should be made to seek alternative sources of supply. The trade are now seeking every way to find fresh supplies of sacks. We are buying a great deal on the Continent, and on this the Board of Trade are paying a Customs Duty of 20 per cent. to the Treasury, on sacks which eventually go to the agricultural community at an increased price. That seems an absurd situation which I


hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain.

Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate one thing before he sits down? If an answer is given by the Minister, and if the hon. Gentleman does not divide on the matter, is that going to indicate that he accepts the answer? If he does not, and his party does not divide, will he explain why they have brought the matter up?

Mr. Deedes: I was just going to finish my speech on the subject of sacks.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If hon. Members would not intervene we should dispose of matters much more quickly.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has raised the important question of the shortage of hessian, from which sacks are made. Are we now entitled to go into the whole question of the import and shortage of hessian?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Only so far as it affects the matters referred to in the Prayer.

Mr. Deedes: There are these two points —the source of the raw material and cost of the stuff we are buying from Europe, in connection with which there is this curious Customs arrangement whereby, as far as I can see, Peter pays Paul. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind in his reply that this is an increase in a commodity price which is saddling agriculture with yet another increase in costs. I hope also he will convey these observations to the President of the Board of Trade, who is more closely concerned.

Mr. A. Lewis: Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, can he say whether he thinks the Opposition are genuine in putting down these Prayers when there are fewer than 42 of them present?

5.30 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): If I may answer first the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), he realises well enough that most of what he has said would be more appropriately addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, and perhaps he will take a more suitable occasion to raise the matter with him.

The hon. Member is as aware as I am that the control in the jute industry is exercised by the trade itself. The only conclusion I could draw from the remarks he made is that this control should be exercised by the Government. That would mean a Statutory Instrument, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would oblige the jute industry by coming to the House and praying against it.
Let me come to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Prayer. I do not believe for a moment he is an absolute fool. I have heard him broadcast and I think he possesses considerable guile. He read the Explanatory Note and he read the Order and understood perfectly what they meant. I think he came to the House to pursue a personal vendetta against the corn merchants of this country.

Mr. Crouch: No.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House, whatever the hour of the day or night it may be, that when a personal imputation is made by one hon. Member, the hon. Member about whom he makes it is allowed to reply.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that was a personal imputation and it ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: In view of what you say, of course I will withdraw.
I will explain what this Order does. As the hon. Member for Ashford said, the price of jute has increased and in consequence of that increase the price of sacks has increased. Corn merchants have to buy sacks, and if they buy sacks at increased prices and we do not allow them an adjustment, then that increase of price must come out of their margins. What the hon. Gentleman who moved the Prayer has done wilfully is to say that the increase in the price of sacks, for which the merchants are not at all responsible, should be taken out of their margins. The hon. Gentleman has not produced a shred of evidence to show that their margins are unfair, that they are over-generous to merchants. I think the hon. Gentleman knows well enough—and I take it that he is going to take this challenge into the Lobbies—that the effect of his Prayer must inevitably be that the margins of the corn merchants are reduced. I think this is most unfair, and most unjust to the corn merchants.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Crouch rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to intervene unless the hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the House gives way. He has not given way and the hon. Gentleman therefore cannot intervene.

Mr. Willey: It is conceded by everyone in the House that the only effect that the success of the Prayer would have would be to reduce the corn merchants' margins. It could have no other effect. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not say, "I am moving this Prayer, never having read the Order, never having read the Explanatory Note." He is in full knowledge of what he is doing. He comes to the House, without any tittle of evidence against these merchants, to say what he has said, for an undisclosed reason—and that is why I suggested something which I have withdrawn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to put this right.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Let him have a chance.

Mr. Willey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that the remarks I have made are widely circulated in his constituency, because I think the farmers there should know that there are two sides to the case he has given to the House. He suggested no reason at all for penalising the merchants' margins. Now let me say a word or two about the farmers. This does not affect them. If they pay an increased deposit for a sack which costs more, they get it back when they return the sack. If as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) suggested, they buy a sack and feedingstuffs and do not return the sack, they can sell it for more than they paid for it.

Major Legge-Bourke: All I did was to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the last sentence of the Explanatory Note merely to back up what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Willey: I have already replied to that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who came here with such vigour

and persistence in the early hours of the morning will carry his convictions to the Lobby.

Mr. Peter Smithers: I have stayed up to this early hour— [Interruption]—and I am glad to have such a warm welcome from hon. Members opposite—to hear what the Minister had to say about this problem affecting the agricultural industry. I am sorry he did not deal with the important matter of Import Duty. The Dutch Government have helped their farmers by a cut of 10 per cent., and I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he consulted the Board of Trade before he made the Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the question of Import Duty has anything to do with this Order.

Mr. Smithers: I will pass from that point to another. I understand you rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I must confine my remarks to the subject of sacks. There is one way the Government could help the people of the country—sack themselves.

Mr. Crouch: I understand I have a right of reply. The Minister has said that I have no objection to the merchants having reduced margins on profits. I am concerned about the farmer having an extra charge on the price of his sacks.

Mr. Willey: indicated dissent.

Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but as a practical farmer I can tell him that 50 per cent. of the sacks bought are non-returnable because they get so damaged by vermin or in other ways that they are not fit to return. As for the statement he made about the farmer being able to sell a sack at a higher price than he paid for it, I would refer him to the January number of the Review of Prices. There he will see that the secondhand price of a sugar-beet sack, for which he is paying 30 pence, is 26¾ pence. It could not be said that the farmer was making more from empty sacks than he paid for them when he bought them.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. IGNATIUS MUSAZI (DEPORTATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed,"That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Popplewell.]

5.41 a.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I very much regret the mischance which makes it necessary for me to raise this matter at this hour. I regret it for my own sake, for the sake of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for your sake, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the sake of hon. Members, and, of course, for the sake of the Whips. I wish to raise the question of the deportation of Mr. Ignatius Musazi from Uganda.
Mr. Musazi was president of the Uganda African Farmers' Union. It had 80,000 members, which was 25 per cent. of the peasant and farming population of that Protectorate. He came to Britain in 1949 for two purposes. The first was to see and to seek to lay before the Colonial Secretary the difficulties which the Uganda farmers were having in making arrangements for ginning cotton; and the second was to make a study of the Co-operative Movement in this country, so that when he returned to Uganda he could develop the organisation of the farmers on co-operative lines. Although he received influential introductions, he was not seen by the Colonial Secretary at that time.
In April, 1949, disturbances broke out in Uganda. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Musazi had anything to do with those disturbances at all. The only charge made against him in connection with those disturbances was that he sent a telegram to the Colonial Secretary and that a copy was sent to the Governor of Uganda. As that telegram was not published until nine months after the disturbances, it obviously could have had no effect in encouraging the disturbances at all. I am not defending that telegram, though Mr. Musazi himself puts a very different interpretation on what appears in the Kingdon Report.
There are two other charges only made against Mr. Musazi. The first was in 1939, 12 years ago, when he was charged with forging signatures to a petition. In actual fact the bona fidesof the signatures was recognised, and because of that the charge had to be changed to trans-

ferring signatures from one petition to another. He denies absolutely that he was guilty, but he was found guilty and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. The offence committed 12 years ago cannot possibly justify today's deportation from Uganda.
The third charge against him, and the only other charge which has been made against him, is that he participated in a general strike in Uganda in 1945. On that occasion, he reserved his defence and asked for a public trial. A public trial was refused. Nevertheless, he was deported for two years for conspiracy with intent to overthrow the Protectorate and the Uganda Government. I have examined with the greatest care all the facts about Mr. Musazi's attitude in this country and in Uganda itself. I am entirely convinced that his influence throughout that general strike was for moderation and against violence.
Those are the only three charges against this man. I have asked the Secretary of State whether there is anything else against this man at all, and he has told me that there is nothing whatsoever except what is in the Kingdon Report. There is one telegram sent during the disturbances, the alleged forgery of signatures 12 years ago, and the participation in a general strike for which he was deported but subsequently allowed to return. What possible justification can there be for deporting this man now?
I went to Uganda in August and made a detailed investigation of this matter. I came to this conclusion—that the charges against Mr. Musazi's organisation are not justified. I came to the conclusion that the charges against Mr. Musazi himself are not justified. I could not find a single man in Uganda who believed that Mr. Musazi should be prevented from returning to that country—except, of course, the Government officials. The Bishop of Uganda expressed his complete confidence in Mr. Musazi. The staff of the Makerere College expressed complete confidence in him. Professional men and business men expressed their complete confidence in him. I have known this man closely myself for nearly two years, and I say that there is not an atom of violence or vengeance in him. There are very few men for whose character I have greater respect.
Mr. Musazi returned to Uganda despite the fact that the Secretary of State had informed him that he would be deported if he returned. He returned in January of this year because he felt that he had the right to justify his return to his own people. Meanwhile, the Government had found at last that everything I had said about Mr. Musazi's organisation was true. They now admit that his organisation is aiming at the constructive development of a co-operative movement. They now admit that it is helpfully co-operating with the Government, and they even admit that, although he is in detention, within that detention Mr. Musazi is still devoting himself to the purpose of building the Uganda farmers' movement on a constructive basis.
I say that the Colonial Secretary has been mostly gravely misled on this matter —misled about the farmers' organisation and about Mr. Musazi himself. The Secretary of State has stated in his answers that Mr. Musazi has not been deported but has only been detained, I have in my hand a copy of the deportation order; it is a deportation order from the province of Uganda to the township of Moyo. That is normally the case with a deportation from Uganda; the same thing happened when the deportation order was made against Mr. Musazi in 1945.
I have also had an assurance from the Secretary of State that Mr. Musazi would be free to live under conditions in which his wife and family could join him and where the representatives of his organisation would have access to him. The fact is that Mr. Musazi has five children at school and, with the allowances which would be given if his wife were living with him in this village of deportation, his wife has to go on working in order to maintain those five children at school. It is impossible for her to join him. The allowance paid to him is £3 a week. If his wife joined him there would be 15s. for her and 7s. 6d. for each child up to three. As to access by his organisation, Moyo is an aeroplane journey from Uganda. It takes two days if one travels by road. What chance is there for the representatives of his organisation to discuss with him matters in which he is concerned?
I have spoken strongly on this today and not in a way which expresses my

affection for the Secretary of State, for whom I have a very deep affection. If I have spoken strongly it is because I know that an injustice has been done in this case. I know this man as well as I know a brother. I know that his only desire is to build the farmers' organisation on a constructive and co-operative basis. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has said that the matter is being reconsidered and that there is an opportunity for Mr. Musazi to return. I beg of him not to speak of Mr. Musazi as though Mr. Musazi had changed; the fact is that the Uganda Government have at last found out that I have been right about his organisation and about the man himself. Instead of. making an appeal to Mr. Musazi to change, the honest thing would be for the Uganda Government and for the Colonial Secretary in this country to acknowledge that a mistake has been made both about the organisation and about the man.

5.53 a.m.

Mr. Grimond: I want to say a few words in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). As he has thanked everyone else, I should like to thank him for having raised this subject and the Secretary of State for having come"here to answer at this time of day. I do not want to repeat the facts of this case as they have been put, except to say that I understand they are substantially agreed.
I believe the Secretary of State is sympathetic to some alteration in the system by which, apparently, people can be deported or detained without a trial in the sense in which we regard a trial. I believe he is making an inquiry into the general principle. If he can give an assurance tonight that the system will not continue, as well as an assurance that the case of Mr. Musazi is being reconsidered so that the man may return to his own country, we shall be grateful. I would ask him to bear in mind that the system of deportation, as explained by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, bears with particular severity on the family of people who are deported.

5.55 a.m.

Mr. Dodds: In a matter of secondsI should just like to say that the Co-operative group of hon. Members in this House have gone to some lengths


to look into this case and are satisfied as to the Co-operative movement efforts of this man. Furthermore, up to the present it seems that this whole action has been a terrible blot on our colonial administration. We hope that action will be taken, before long, to ensure that an alteration is made before permanent harm is done.

5.56 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): First, may I say to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that these powers of deportation are very old and have existed in different parts of the colonial territories from times when circumstances were very different and when there were features of colonial life which are absent today. I am examining, with the Governors, these powers and the future intention of them, or otherwise. Consultation is now taking place. I am sure that it is right that I should consult with the Governors about the future of these powers in the light of the circumstances in the territories for which they are responsible. In due course, when the consultations are complete, I will make a statement to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has referred to this case in the House on previous occasions, but I have been reluctant to delve into the past. I have preferred to keep attention on the future, but as he has gone into the history of this case let me, in fairness to the Governor and all concerned, give the House some simple facts. Mr. Musazi came here in December, 1948. He was not deported but came of his own accord. He stayed here from that date. His stay was voluntary. Before he left Africa he had formed the Uganda African Farmers' Union, and that Union believed that the arrangements made for the sale of their cotton to the ginners and the conditions under which those sales were carried out were not all they should be. That, in itself, is a problem. The future of the ginning industry in Uganda is very important, because there is beginning to be a very promising co-operative movement among them. I am paying considerable attention to it, and I hope to study it on the spot if I am privileged to visit Uganda in the near future.
In April, 1949, there were disturbances which led to loss of life and some considerable damage to property. My predecessor in this important office appointed a Commission of high judicial experience and with the highest qualities to make an inquiry. That Commission recorded a finding which was that the disturbances were the result of activity by the Uganda Farmers' Union, which Musazi formed, and the Bataka party. These were held to be primarily responsible for organising what the Report of the Commission describes as a "planned rebellion."

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I do not want to delay my right hon. Friend, but is it not a fact that not a single member of the executive of the Uganda Farmers' Union was charged in connection with these disturbances?

Mr. Griffiths: It is true that Musazi was here. But I am sure that my hon. Friend who has had a lot of experience of public life, will know that it is possible—I will put it no higher than that—for one who is some way apart from happenings to give some inspiration to what takes place. I want to put myself in the position of my predecessor. The Report was presented to him after the inqury, and he had to accept or reject it. My predecessor gave full consideration to the matter, as I have also done. On the evidence I have examined, I think my predecessor was right in accepting the findings of the inquiry.
The position under Uganda law at that time was that no charge could be made in regard to any event six months after the event had taken place. Therefore, no charge has been made against Mr. Musazi. But he and another leader of another party were both held responsible for this planned rebellion. We have been assisting the people of Uganda, as we have other colonial territories, towards responsible self-government within the Commonwealth. I say this for myself and my predecessors, and for the Government to which I belong and for this House. If the Kingdon Report is right, this was organised, planned rebellion.
That is the background. The Governor of a colonial territory is responsible for its security, and he must bear that in mind, particularly when there have been experiences which have not been happy. There


had been tragic experiences in Uganda. Planned rebellion which leads to loss of life is not something to be treated lightly, and a Governor has to take the steps which he may think necessary to prevent further disturbances taking place.
The Governor of Uganda thought it desirable therefore that Mr. Musazi should not return to the area from which, and in which, this disturbance took place in 1949. This view was conveyed to him. However, eventually he has gone back. He is now in detention in the town which my hon. Friend has mentioned. He is provided with living quarters. Arrangements have been made for his wife and children to be with him. My hon. Friend may think that the allowance made to Mr. Musazi is inadequate. That is a matter of opinion. He is not kept in a prison. During the daytime he is allowed out within the precincts of the town in which he now lives. He cannot leave the place in which he lives at night without permission from the District Commissioner, but he can get permission. He has been interviewed by a representative of the Government, and as far as I know it was made clear that he should have an opportunity of discussing problems of the future with leaders of his movement.
It is hoped that Mr. Musazi will find it possible to co-operate with the Government in their efforts to build up this movement. One of the difficulties at the beginning was that Mr. Musazi and his organisation would not register their cooperation under the Companies Ordinance. There have been times in this country when we thought such ordinances were too restrictive, but that was one reason for registering under them, with a view to changing them. We are deeply concerned about the growth of both producers' and consumers' co-operation among these African peasant farms, for that is the answer to so many of their problems and the best way to promote their development.
Recently my adviser on co-operation in the colonial territories has visited this territory and has now returned. It is very essential when a movement of this kind begins that. for its own sake, it should be protected, and that sometimes

the restrictions placed upon it should be rather more severe than we would expect in this country. That is also true of trade unions. In their early stages, trade unions and co-operative movements can be wrecked by dangers against which they have to be protected.
I do not want to rehash the past in this case. I have not met Mr. Musazi. All I know is that when the Kingdon Report was published that was the finding after examining the evidence. I am not saying this unkindly. When the inquiry was held Mr. Musazi might have gone back to give evidence. He was in this country all the time. I do not want it said that it was the fault of the Governor. The evidence was there, recommendations were made, and the Report was published. My predecessor accepted the Report and examined its findings. Now we are in 1951, and I do not want to rehash the matter.
I am sincerely hoping it will be possible to find a way by which Mr. Musazi will co-operate with the Government. That does not prevent his criticising or saying that the Companies Ordinance is not all it should be. But it is certainly desirable, in the interests of the co-operative movement in Uganda, that it should be brought within the Companies Ordinance, that it should grow strong and play an important part. I have no doubt that Mr. Musazi himself will in the futureplay a distinctive part in the building up of the movement. He is now under the kind of detention I have mentioned, and when the Governor is satisfied that it is possible, bearing in mind security considerations, to have Mr. Musazi freed from all restraint, then he will be allowed to return to his area. When he does. I hope it will be his major and only concern to develop the co-operative movement, and that in the future of Uganda we shall have no more planned rebellions, no disturbances, and no loss of life, but that we shall have a development of co-operatives in the best interests of the present and future well-being of the Africans.

Question put, and agreed to:

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Six o'clock a.m.